Overly Broad or Tiny Stories
About 6 out of 10 teams I’ve observed in the field struggle with story size — either writing stories that are too large to complete in a sprint or so small they don’t deliver meaningful value. This imbalance isn’t just a planning issue. It’s a fundamental misstep in how Agile teams understand and deliver user value.
Stories that are too broad often bundle multiple features or outcomes, making it hard to define acceptance criteria, estimate effort, or validate completion. They invite technical debt, misalignment, and rework. On the other hand, stories that are too tiny — like “Add a button” — may be trivial to complete but offer no business or user value. They fragment work, clutter backlogs, and obscure the bigger picture.
You’ll learn how to diagnose whether a story is too big or too small, and most importantly, how to fix both issues using practical, field-tested techniques. You’ll walk away with clear guidelines, decision points, and real examples of how to restructure stories for maximum clarity and impact.
Why Story Size Matters More Than You Think
Every story is a commitment to deliver value — not just a task to be checked off.
Size directly affects planning accuracy, team morale, and sprint velocity. A story that takes 10 days to complete but is expected to be done in one sprint creates pressure, estimation bias, and constant firefighting.
Conversely, a story so small it takes 15 minutes to build doesn’t justify a full refinement session or a dedicated task. It becomes noise, diluting the backlog’s signal-to-noise ratio.
Size isn’t just about effort — it’s about value delivery. A story should deliver a visible, testable outcome that a real user can experience.
How to Spot a Problematic Story
Here’s a quick diagnostic checklist:
- The story requires more than 3–5 days of work to complete
- It includes the word “and” or “plus” in the goal
- Acceptance criteria are impossible to define without assumptions
- It can’t be tested independently without other stories
- It feels like a task disguised as a story
If more than two of these apply, you’ve likely got a user story size mistake on your hands.
Fixing Overly Broad Stories
Overly broad stories often stem from poor decomposition. A team might write: “As a customer, I want to manage my profile so that I can update my information.” This seems simple — but it includes editing name, address, password, photo, and preferences.
Such stories become untestable and unmanageable. They’re a recipe for scope creep, missed commitments, and frustration.
Here’s how to break them down.
Strategy: Splitting User Stories by Value and Boundary
Use these two filters to split effectively:
- By value delivery – Does the story deliver a distinct user benefit? If yes, keep it. If no, split.
- By system boundary – Is the story tied to a single module or function? If not, split.
Apply these rules to the example:
- As a customer, I want to update my name so that I can reflect my current identity.
- As a customer, I want to change my password so that my account stays secure.
- As a customer, I want to upload a profile photo so that I can personalize my account.
Now each story delivers a specific, testable outcome. Each can be independently verified and estimated. The team can prioritize and deliver them in sequence.
This is the essence of story granularity problems. Not all stories should be the same size — but none should be so large they block delivery.
When to Split: Decision Tree
Use this flow to decide whether a story needs splitting:
- Is the story longer than 3 days of work? → Split
- Does it involve more than one user role or system? → Split
- Can it be verified without the involvement of other stories? → Yes → Keep
- Does it have multiple “so that” outcomes? → Split
Following this flow ensures you only split stories that are genuinely too big — not those that are just complex.
Fixing Overly Tiny Stories
Now consider this: “As a user, I want to click the submit button.”
It’s technically a valid story. But it delivers no value. It doesn’t meet a user need. It’s just a UI task.
These micro-stories clutter backlogs, inflate velocity, and distract from real value delivery.
They often result from teams focusing on implementation instead of outcomes.
How to Identify and Fix Micro-Stories
Ask three questions:
- What does the user gain from this?
- Can this be tested without a larger context?
- Would a user notice this change?
If the answer to any is “no,” it’s a micro-story. Combine or rewrite it.
Instead of “Add a button,” try:
- As a user, I want to submit my form so that I can complete my registration.
- As a user, I want to confirm my email address so that I can activate my account.
These are now stories with clear value, acceptance criteria, and testability.
Remember: splitting user stories isn’t about making them smaller — it’s about making them meaningful.
Guidelines for Appropriate Story Granularity
Here’s a practical guide to story size in story points:
| Story Points | Typical Story Size | Recommended Use |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Under 1 day of work | Very small tasks (e.g., “Add a label”) — only if tied to a larger value |
| 2–3 | 1–2 days of work | Small, testable features (e.g., “Update email”) — ideal |
| 5–8 | 2–4 days of work | Medium stories — can be split if too complex |
| 13+ | 5+ days of work | Must be split — indicates a user story size mistake |
Use this not as a rule, but as a reflection of your team’s rhythm. If 8-point stories are common, you’re likely under-splitting.
Practical Tips for Consistent Story Sizing
Size isn’t arbitrary. It’s a shared understanding refined through experience.
- Use a story size anchor — pick a 3-point story everyone agrees is “about right” and compare others to it.
- Hold regular story size retrospectives — review 3–5 stories per sprint. Ask: “Was the estimate accurate? Why or why not?”
- Pair refinement with planning poker — but don’t skip the conversation. The number is secondary to the discussion.
- Document your team’s story size rules in your Definition of Ready. Include max size, minimum value, and splitting criteria.
These practices build consistency and reduce the chance of repeating user story size mistakes.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I know if a story is too big to be in a sprint?
A story is too big if it exceeds your team’s average sprint capacity. Most teams should avoid stories over 8 points. If a story takes more than 3–5 days to complete, split it.
Can I have a 1-point story?
Yes, but only if it delivers a real user value. A 1-point story should not be just a technical task. “Add a label” isn’t a story — “Add a confirmation label after submission” is.
What if splitting a story breaks a technical dependency?
Don’t let dependency block value delivery. Break the dependency during refinement, or deliver in phases. For example, split by feature layer: “Add input field,” then “Validate input,” then “Submit form.” This respects the flow of user experience.
Is there a standard for story size across teams?
No. Story size is relative to team velocity and context. A 5-point story for one team may be 8 points for another. Focus on consistency within your team, not across teams.
How often should I review story size in refinement?
Review story size in every refinement session. Use the size anchor and a checklist. If a story is over 8 points, it must be split before sprint planning.
Should I ever keep a story larger than 8 points?
Only if it’s a known, well-understood epic that spans multiple sprints — and only after splitting it into smaller, value-delivering increments. Even then, it must be broken down during the sprint.
Remember: a story is a placeholder for a conversation. But that conversation is pointless if the story is too big to discuss or too small to matter.
Mastering story size isn’t about guessing effort. It’s about understanding user value, breaking down complexity, and building trust through transparency. When you fix the user story size mistake, you fix planning, delivery, and team alignment.
Go back to your backlog. Find three stories that feel off. Apply the rules in this chapter. You’ll see immediate improvements in clarity, team confidence, and delivery speed.
