PaperclipOrg
Claude Agent Skill · by Deanpeters

Epic Breakdown Advisor

Install Epic Breakdown Advisor skill for Claude Code from deanpeters/product-manager-skills.

Works with Paperclip

How Epic Breakdown Advisor fits into a Paperclip company.

Epic Breakdown Advisor drops into any Paperclip agent that handles this kind of work. Assign it to a specialist inside a pre-configured PaperclipOrg company and the skill becomes available on every heartbeat — no prompt engineering, no tool wiring.

S
SaaS FactoryPaired

Pre-configured AI company — 18 agents, 18 skills, one-time purchase.

$27$59
Explore pack
Source file
SKILL.md665 lines
Expand
---name: epic-breakdown-advisordescription: Break down epics into user stories with Humanizing Work split patterns. Use when a backlog item is too large to estimate, sequence, or deliver safely.intent: >-  Guide product managers through breaking down epics into user stories using Richard Lawrence's complete Humanizing Work methodology—a systematic, flowchart-driven approach that applies 9 splitting patterns sequentially. Use this to identify which pattern applies, split while preserving user value, and evaluate splits based on what they reveal about low-value work you can eliminate. This ensures vertical slicing (end-to-end value) rather than horizontal slicing (technical layers).type: interactivebest_for:  - "Splitting epics into smaller vertical slices"  - "Choosing the right story split pattern for a large backlog item"  - "Turning vague feature blobs into sprint-sized stories"scenarios:  - "Break this onboarding epic into smaller user stories"  - "Help me split a large reporting feature before sprint planning"  - "Which story-splitting pattern should I use for this admin workflow epic?"---  ## PurposeGuide product managers through breaking down epics into user stories using Richard Lawrence's complete Humanizing Work methodology—a systematic, flowchart-driven approach that applies 9 splitting patterns sequentially. Use this to identify which pattern applies, split while preserving user value, and evaluate splits based on what they reveal about low-value work you can eliminate. This ensures vertical slicing (end-to-end value) rather than horizontal slicing (technical layers). This is not arbitrary slicing—it's a proven, methodical process that starts with validation, walks through patterns in order, and evaluates results strategically. ## Key Concepts ### Core Principles: Vertical Slices Preserve ValueA user story is "a description of a change in system behavior from the perspective of a user." Splitting must maintain **vertical slices**—work that touches multiple architectural layers and delivers observable user value—not horizontal slices addressing single components (e.g., "front-end story" + "back-end story"). ### The Three-Step Process1. **Pre-Split Validation:** Check if story satisfies INVEST criteria (except "Small")2. **Apply Splitting Patterns:** Work through 9 patterns sequentially until one fits3. **Evaluate Splits:** Choose the split that reveals low-value work or produces equal-sized stories ### The 9 Splitting Patterns (In Order)1. **Workflow Steps** — Thin end-to-end slices, not step-by-step2. **Operations (CRUD)** — Create, Read, Update, Delete as separate stories3. **Business Rule Variations** — Different rules = different stories4. **Data Variations** — Different data types/structures5. **Data Entry Methods** — Simple UI first, fancy UI later6. **Major Effort** — "Implement one + add remaining"7. **Simple/Complex** — Core simplest version first, variations later8. **Defer Performance** — "Make it work" before "make it fast"9. **Break Out a Spike** — Time-box investigation when uncertainty blocks splitting ### Meta-Pattern (Applies Across All Patterns)1. Identify the core complexity2. List all variations3. Reduce variations to **one complete slice**4. Make other variations separate stories ### Why This Works- **Prevents arbitrary splitting:** Methodical checklist prevents guessing- **Preserves user value:** Every story delivers observable value- **Reveals waste:** Good splits expose low-value work you can deprioritize- **Repeatable:** Apply to any epic consistently --- ### Facilitation Source of Truth Use [`workshop-facilitation`](../workshop-facilitation/SKILL.md) as the default interaction protocol for this skill. It defines:- session heads-up + entry mode (Guided, Context dump, Best guess)- one-question turns with plain-language prompts- progress labels (for example, Context Qx/8 and Scoring Qx/5)- interruption handling and pause/resume behavior- numbered recommendations at decision points- quick-select numbered response options for regular questions (include `Other (specify)` when useful) This file defines the domain-specific assessment content. If there is a conflict, follow this file's domain logic. ## Application ### Step 0: Provide Epic Context **Agent asks:** Please share your epic: - Epic title/ID- Description or hypothesis- Acceptance criteria (especially multiple "When/Then" pairs)- Target persona- Rough estimate **You can paste from Jira, Linear, or describe briefly.** --- ### Step 1: Pre-Split Validation (INVEST Check) **Before splitting, verify your story satisfies INVEST criteria (except "Small"):** **Agent asks questions sequentially:** **1. Independent?**"Can this story be prioritized and developed without hard technical dependencies on other stories?" **Options:**- Yes — No blocking dependencies- No — Requires other work first (flag this) --- **2. Negotiable?**"Does this story leave room for the team to discover implementation details collaboratively, rather than prescribing exact solutions?" **Options:**- Yes — It's a conversation starter, not a spec- No — It's too prescriptive (may need reframing) --- **3. Valuable?**"Does this story deliver observable value to a user? (If not, combine it with related work rather than splitting.)" **Options:**- Yes — Users see/experience something different- No — It's a technical task (not a user story—don't split, reframe) **⚠️ Critical Check:** If story fails "Valuable," STOP. Don't split. Instead, combine with other work to create a meaningful increment. --- **4. Estimable?**"Can your team size this story relatively (even if roughly)?" **Options:**- Yes — Team can estimate days/points- No — Too much uncertainty (may need spike first) --- **5. Testable?**"Does this story have concrete acceptance criteria that QA can verify?" **Options:**- Yes — Clear pass/fail conditions- No — Needs clearer acceptance criteria (refine before splitting) --- **If story passes all checks → Proceed to Step 2 (Splitting Patterns)****If story fails any check → Fix the issue before splitting** --- ### Step 2: Apply Splitting Patterns Sequentially Work through patterns in order. For each pattern, ask "Does this apply?" --- ### Pattern 1: Workflow Steps **Key insight:** Split into **thin end-to-end slices**, not step-by-step. Start with a simple case covering the **full workflow**, then add intermediate steps as separate stories. **Agent asks:**"Does your epic involve a multi-step workflow where you could deliver a simple case first, then add intermediate steps later?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Publish content (requires editorial review, legal approval, staging)"- **❌ Wrong split (step-by-step):** Story 1 = Editorial review, Story 2 = Legal approval, Story 3 = Publish- **✅ Right split (thin end-to-end):**  - Story 1: Publish content (simple path: author uploads, content goes live immediately—no reviews)  - Story 2: Add editorial review step (now content waits for editor approval before going live)  - Story 3: Add legal approval step (content waits for legal + editorial before going live) **Each story delivers full workflow**, just with increasing sophistication. **Options:**1. **Yes, multi-step workflow** → "Describe the workflow steps"2. **No, single step** → Continue to Pattern 2 **If YES:** Agent generates thin end-to-end slice splits. --- ### Pattern 2: Operations (CRUD) **Key insight:** The word "manage" signals multiple operations. Split into Create, Read, Update, Delete. **Agent asks:**"Does your epic use words like 'manage,' 'handle,' or 'maintain'? If so, it likely bundles multiple operations (CRUD)." **Example:**- **Original:** "Manage user accounts"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Create user account  - Story 2: View user account details  - Story 3: Edit user account info  - Story 4: Delete user account **Options:**1. **Yes, contains multiple operations** → "List the operations (Create/Read/Update/Delete/etc.)"2. **No, single operation** → Continue to Pattern 3 **If YES:** Agent generates one story per operation. --- ### Pattern 3: Business Rule Variations **Key insight:** When identical functionality operates under different rules, each rule becomes its own story. **Agent asks:**"Does your epic have different business rules for different scenarios (user types, regions, tiers, conditions)?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Flight search with flexible dates (date range, specific weekends, date offsets)"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Search by date range (+/- N days)  - Story 2: Search by specific weekends only  - Story 3: Search by date offsets (N days before/after) **Options:**1. **Yes, different rules** → "Describe the rule variations"2. **No, same rules for all** → Continue to Pattern 4 **If YES:** Agent generates one story per rule variation. --- ### Pattern 4: Data Variations **Key insight:** Complexity from handling different data types or structures. Add variations **just-in-time** as needed. **Agent asks:**"Does your epic handle different data types, formats, or structures (e.g., file types, geographic levels, user attributes)?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Geographic search (counties, cities/towns/neighborhoods, custom provider areas)"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Search by county  - Story 2: Add city/town/neighborhood search  - Story 3: Add custom provider area search **Options:**1. **Yes, different data types** → "List the data variations"2. **No, single data type** → Continue to Pattern 5 **If YES:** Agent generates one story per data variation (deliver simplest first). --- ### Pattern 5: Data Entry Methods **Key insight:** UI complexity independent of core functionality. Build simplest interface first, then add sophisticated UI as follow-ups. **Agent asks:**"Does your epic include fancy UI elements (date pickers, autocomplete, drag-and-drop) that aren't essential to core functionality?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Search with calendar date picker"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Search by date (basic text input: "YYYY-MM-DD")  - Story 2: Add visual calendar picker UI **Options:**1. **Yes, fancy UI elements** → "Describe the UI enhancements"2. **No, basic UI only** → Continue to Pattern 6 **If YES:** Agent generates Story 1 = basic input, Story 2+ = UI enhancements. --- ### Pattern 6: Major Effort **Key insight:** When **initial implementation** carries most complexity, with additions being trivial. Frame as "implement one + add remaining." **Agent asks:**"Does your epic involve building infrastructure where the **first implementation** is hard, but adding more is easy?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Accept credit card payments (Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover)"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Accept Visa payments (build full payment infrastructure)  - Story 2: Add Mastercard, Amex, Discover support (trivial additions) **⚠️ Note:** First story does the heavy lift (payment gateway, security, compliance). Subsequent stories are small additions. **Options:**1. **Yes, major effort pattern** → "What's the first implementation + what are the additions?"2. **No, no infrastructure work** → Continue to Pattern 7 **If YES:** Agent generates Story 1 = build infrastructure, Story 2 = add remaining variants. --- ### Pattern 7: Simple/Complex **Key insight:** Identify story's core by asking "What's the simplest version?" Extract variations into separate stories. **Agent asks:**"What's the **simplest version** of this epic that still delivers value? Can you strip away complexity and add it back later?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Flight search (with max stops, nearby airports, flexible dates)"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Basic flight search (origin, destination, date)  - Story 2: Add max stops filter  - Story 3: Add nearby airports option  - Story 4: Add flexible dates option **Options:**1. **Yes, can identify simplest core** → "Describe the simplest version + what variations to defer"2. **No, it's already simple** → Continue to Pattern 8 **If YES:** Agent generates Story 1 = simplest core, Story 2+ = variations. --- ### Pattern 8: Defer Performance **Key insight:** Split "make it work" from "make it fast." Non-functional requirements (performance, security, scalability) can follow functional delivery. **Agent asks:**"Can you deliver functional value first, then optimize performance/security/scalability later?" **Example:**- **Original:** "Real-time search with <100ms response time"- **Split:**  - Story 1: Search works (functional, no performance guarantee)  - Story 2: Optimize search to <100ms (add caching, indexing) **Options:**1. **Yes, can defer optimization** → "What's the functional version + what's the optimization?"2. **No, performance is essential** → Continue to Pattern 9 **If YES:** Agent generates Story 1 = functional, Story 2 = optimize. --- ### Pattern 9: Break Out a Spike **Key insight:** Last resort when **uncertainty prevents splitting**. Time-box investigation to answer specific questions, then split implementation story with better understanding. **Agent says:**"None of patterns 1-8 apply, which suggests **high uncertainty**. Before splitting, run a **spike** to reduce uncertainty." **A spike is a time-boxed investigation (not a story), answering questions like:**- Is this technically feasible?- Which approach performs best?- What does the API actually return? **Agent asks:**"What's the biggest unknown preventing you from splitting this epic?" **Options:**1. **Technical feasibility** — "Can we build this with our stack?"2. **Approach uncertainty** — "Multiple ways to solve it, unclear which is best"3. **External dependency** — "Don't know what third-party API provides" **Agent recommends:**→ "Run a 1-2 day spike to answer [question]. After the spike, come back and we'll split the epic with better understanding." **⚠️ Spikes produce learning, not shippable code. After the spike, restart at Pattern 1.** --- ### Step 3: Evaluate Split Quality **After splitting, evaluate using these criteria:** **Agent asks:** **1. Does this split reveal low-value work you can deprioritize or eliminate?**- Good splits expose the 80/20 principle: most value concentrates in a small portion of functionality- Example: After splitting "Flight search" into 4 stories, you realize "flexible dates" is rarely used → deprioritize or kill it **2. Does this split produce more equally-sized stories?**- Equal-sized stories give Product Owners greater prioritization flexibility- Example: Instead of one 10-day epic, five 2-day stories allow reordering mid-sprint **If split doesn't satisfy either criterion, try a different pattern.** --- ### Meta-Pattern Application **Across all patterns, follow this sequence:**1. **Identify core complexity** — What makes this epic hard?2. **List variations** — What are all the different ways/cases/rules?3. **Reduce to one complete slice** — Pick the simplest variation that still delivers end-to-end value4. **Make other variations separate stories** --- ### Cynefin Domain Considerations **Strategy shifts based on complexity domain:** **Agent asks:**"How much uncertainty surrounds this epic?" **Options:** 1. **Low uncertainty (Obvious/Complicated domain)** — "We know what to build; it's just engineering work"   → Find all stories, prioritize by value/risk 2. **High uncertainty (Complex domain)** — "We're not sure what customers want or what will work"   → Identify 1-2 **learning stories**; avoid exhaustive enumeration (work itself teaches what matters) 3. **Chaos** — "Everything is on fire; priorities shift daily"   → **Defer splitting** until stability emerges; focus on stabilization first --- ### Output: Generate Story Breakdown ```markdown# Epic Breakdown Plan **Epic:** [Original epic]**Pre-Split Validation:** ✅ Passes INVEST (except Small)**Splitting Pattern Applied:** [Pattern name]**Rationale:** [Why this pattern fits] --- ## Story Breakdown ### Story 1: [Title] (Simplest Complete Slice) **Summary:** [User-value-focused title] **Use Case:**- **As a** [persona]- **I want to** [action]- **so that** [outcome] **Acceptance Criteria:**- **Given:** [Preconditions]- **When:** [Action]- **Then:** [Outcome] **Why This First:** [Delivers core value; simpler variations follow]**Estimated Effort:** [Days/points] --- ### Story 2: [Title] (First Variation) [Repeat...] --- ### Story 3: [Title] (Second Variation) [Repeat...] --- ## Split Evaluation ✅ **Does this split reveal low-value work?**- [Analysis: Which stories could be deprioritized/eliminated?] ✅ **Does this split produce equal-sized stories?**- [Analysis: Are stories roughly equal in effort?] --- ## INVEST Validation (Each Story) ✅ **Independent:** Stories can be developed in any order✅ **Negotiable:** Implementation details can be discovered collaboratively✅ **Valuable:** Each story delivers observable user value✅ **Estimable:** Team can size each story✅ **Small:** Each story fits in 1-5 days✅ **Testable:** Clear acceptance criteria for each --- ## Next Steps 1. **Review with team:** Do PM, design, engineering agree?2. **Check for further splitting:** Are any stories still >5 days? If yes, **restart at Pattern 1** for that story.3. **Prioritize:** Which story delivers most value first?4. **Consider eliminating:** Did split reveal low-value stories? Kill or defer them. --- **If stories are still too large, re-apply patterns starting at Pattern 1.**``` --- ## Examples ### Example 1: Pattern 1 Applied (Workflow Steps - Thin End-to-End) **Epic:** "Publish blog post (requires editorial review, legal approval, staging)" **Pre-Split Validation:** ✅ Passes INVEST **Pattern 1:** "Does this have workflow steps?" → YES ✅ **❌ Wrong Split (Step-by-Step):**1. Editorial review story2. Legal approval story3. Publish story→ Problem: Story 1 doesn't deliver value (users see nothing) **✅ Right Split (Thin End-to-End):**1. **Publish post (simple path)** — Author uploads, post goes live immediately (no reviews)2. **Add editorial review** — Post now waits for editor approval before going live3. **Add legal approval** — Post waits for legal + editorial before going live **Why this works:** Each story delivers **full workflow**, just with increasing sophistication. --- ### Example 2: Pattern 2 Applied (CRUD Operations) **Epic:** "Manage user profiles" **Pattern 2:** "Does this say 'manage'?" → YES ✅ (signals CRUD) **Split:**1. Create user profile2. View user profile details3. Edit user profile info4. Delete user profile **Split Evaluation:**- ✅ **Reveals low-value work:** After analysis, "Delete profile" is rarely used → deprioritize- ✅ **Equal-sized stories:** Each 1-2 days --- ### Example 3: Pattern 7 Applied (Simple/Complex) **Epic:** "Flight search with max stops, nearby airports, flexible dates" **Pattern 7:** "What's the simplest version?" → Basic search ✅ **Split:**1. Basic flight search (origin, destination, date) — **Core value**2. Add max stops filter — **Enhancement**3. Add nearby airports option — **Enhancement**4. Add flexible dates option — **Enhancement** **Split Evaluation:**- ✅ **Reveals low-value work:** User research shows "flexible dates" rarely used → kill or defer- ✅ **Equal-sized stories:** Story 1 = 3 days, others = 1 day each --- ### Example 4: Iterative Splitting (Multiple Patterns) **Epic:** "Checkout flow with discounts (member, VIP, first-time) and payment (Visa, Mastercard, Amex)" **First Pass - Pattern 1 (Workflow):** YES ✅- Story 1: Add items to cart- Story 2: Apply discount- Story 3: Complete payment **Check Story 2 ("Apply discount"):** Still 4 days → Too large, re-split **Second Pass on Story 2 - Pattern 3 (Business Rules):** YES ✅- Story 2a: Apply member discount (10%)- Story 2b: Apply VIP discount (20%)- Story 2c: Apply first-time discount (5%) **Check Story 3 ("Complete payment"):** Still 5 days → Too large, re-split **Third Pass on Story 3 - Pattern 6 (Major Effort):** YES ✅- Story 3a: Accept Visa payments (build payment infrastructure)- Story 3b: Add Mastercard, Amex support **Final Breakdown:** 6 stories, all 1-2 days each --- ## Common Pitfalls ### Pitfall 1: Skipping Pre-Split Validation**Symptom:** Jump straight to splitting without checking INVEST **Consequence:** Split a story that shouldn't be split (e.g., not Valuable = technical task) **Fix:** Always run Step 1 (INVEST check) before Step 2 (splitting patterns) --- ### Pitfall 2: Step-by-Step Workflow Splitting (Pattern 1 Done Wrong)**Symptom:** Story 1 = "Editorial review," Story 2 = "Legal approval" **Consequence:** Stories don't deliver end-to-end value **Fix:** Each story should cover **full workflow** (thin end-to-end slice), just with increasing sophistication --- ### Pitfall 3: Horizontal Slicing (Technical Layers)**Symptom:** "Story 1: Build API. Story 2: Build UI." **Consequence:** Neither story delivers user value **Fix:** Vertical slicing—each story includes front-end + back-end to deliver observable user behavior --- ### Pitfall 4: Forcing a Pattern That Doesn't Fit**Symptom:** "We'll split by workflow even though there's no sequence" **Consequence:** Arbitrary, meaningless split **Fix:** If pattern doesn't apply, say NO and continue to next pattern --- ### Pitfall 5: Not Re-Splitting Large Stories**Symptom:** Split epic into 3 stories, but each is still 5+ days **Consequence:** Stories too large for sprint **Fix:** **Restart at Pattern 1** for each large story until all are 1-5 days --- ### Pitfall 6: Ignoring Split Evaluation (Step 3)**Symptom:** Split but don't evaluate if it reveals low-value work **Consequence:** Miss opportunity to eliminate waste **Fix:** After splitting, ask: "Does this reveal work we can kill or defer?" --- ## Practice & Skill Development **Humanizing Work recommendation:** Teams reach fluency in **2.5-3 hours** across multiple practice sessions. **Practice approach:**1. **Analyze recently completed features** (hindsight makes patterns obvious)2. **Walk completed work through the flowchart** — Which pattern would have applied?3. **Find multiple split approaches** for each feature4. **Build shared vocabulary** of domain-specific pattern examples **Don't skip practice work.** Skill develops through analyzing past deliverables, not just refining future work. --- ## References ### Related Skills- `user-story-splitting.md` — The 9 patterns in detail- `user-story.md` — Format for writing stories- `epic-hypothesis.md` — Original epic format ### External Frameworks- Richard Lawrence & Peter Green, *The Humanizing Work Guide to Splitting User Stories* — Complete methodology- Bill Wake, *INVEST in Good Stories* (2003) — Quality criteria ### Sources- https://www.humanizingwork.com/the-humanizing-work-guide-to-splitting-user-stories/ --- **Skill type:** Interactive**Suggested filename:** `epic-breakdown-advisor.md`**Suggested placement:** `/skills/interactive/`**Dependencies:** Uses `user-story-splitting.md`, `user-story.md`, `epic-hypothesis.md`