Exploring LLMs for User Story Extraction from Mockups

App store reviews provide a constant flow of real user feedback that can help improve software requirements. However, these reviews are often messy, informal, and difficult to analyze manually at scale. Although automated techniques exist, many do not perform well when replicated and often fail to produce clean, backlog-ready user stories for agile projects. In this study, we evaluate how well large language models (LLMs) such as GPT-3.5 Turbo, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Mistral 7B Instruct can generate usable user stories directly from raw app reviews. Using the Mini-BAR dataset of 1,000+ health app reviews, we tested zero-shot, one-shot, and two-shot prompting methods. We evaluated the generated user stories using both human judgment (via the RUST framework) and a RoBERTa classifier fine-tuned on UStAI to assess their overall quality. Our results show that LLMs can match or even outperform humans in writing fluent, well-formatted user stories, especially when few-shot prompts are used. However, they still struggle to produce independent and unique user stories, which are essential for building a strong agile backlog. Overall, our findings show how LLMs can reliably turn unstructured app reviews into actionable software requirements, providing developers with clear guidance to turn user feedback into meaningful improvements.

Creating sprint backlogs requires considerable effort, as items such as epics, user stories, and tasks can be missed or inconsistently specified. We propose a multimodal approach to support backlog generation from visual app mockups, an artifact available at early project stages. We evaluate three prompting strategies on GPT-4o: a zero-shot baseline, Compositional Chain-of-Thought (CCoT) for vision-language reasoning, and a persona-driven prompt. We study seven app development projects across two countries and interview developers about the results. Overall, we observed that the baseline prompt favours recall over precision, whereas CCoT is more balanced, achieving average F1 scores of 52-66% for epics and user stories. Tasks were more challenging to generate accurately. Precision gains were most consistent when adding architectural context, particularly for backend tasks (precision gains up to 35%). Interviews with developers revealed that up to 26% of false positives were still considered useful, reflecting the creative and open-ended nature of backlog creation. To capture this, we propose a new measure called Revised Recall, which complements ground-truth evaluation with developer assessments. Our findings suggest that hybrid prompting with architectural context can assist backlog generation from early mockups, though results vary by item type and developer oversight remains necessary.

Large language models (LLMs) have changed the way people engage with stories. Drawing on public chatbot logs, we can see that when users generate stories, they iteratively edit their prompts to explore narrative possibilities, adjusting characters, redirecting plots, and swapping fictional universes. As aggregated data, these prompts represent rich traces of creative preference at scale. Yet story generation evaluation benchmarks rely on static, one-shot prompts that cannot capture this exploratory behavior. In this work, we study how users revise consecutive story prompts in the wild. Using a dataset of naturally occurring user-chatbot conversations, we construct WildStories, a sample of 275,635 story generation prompts (labeled with story format, prompt components, and explicitness), and WildEdits, a collection of 24,291 edit trees that model how users iteratively edit base story prompts and explore branching story possibilities. From these trees we develop a framework of edit types crossing four directions (adding, removing, changing, and extending) with fourteen targets (e.g., plot, character, genre). We then use our datasets and this framework to analyze user behavior in navigating narrative space via LLMs. Finally, we show how automated permutations based on the framework can be used for story generation benchmarking. Content Warning: This paper works with "wild" chatbot logs, which often include toxic and sexually explicit themes.