Evaluation and verification of requirements artifacts: A Checklist applied to User Stories and Prototype
Abstract
The quality of system requirements is essential to ensure that the software meets user needs. In the context of software engineering, specifying requirements through user stories and prototypes has become a widely adopted practice in the industry, as it facilitates effective communication among requirements, development, and testing teams. However, for these practices to be effective, information essential to developing functionality must be clearly specified and organized. To support this verification process and ensure the completeness of artifacts, this work proposes VUSP (Checklist for the Assessment and Verification of User Stories and Prototypes), focused on the verification of requirements artifacts. The feasibility of VUSP was evaluated in a study involving 38 participants from a Software Engineering course at the Federal University of Amazonas, who used the checklist to verify user stories and prototypes. Participants provided feedback on the tool’s usability and effectiveness using the TAM (Technology Acceptance Model), addressing aspects such as perceived ease of use, work relevance, and behavioral intention. The results indicate that VUSP helped identify improvements in documentation and the centralization of essential information for development.
Keywords:
Requirements engineering, Requirements specification, User Stories, Prototypes
References
Alaa Abdalazeim and Farid Meziane. 2021. A review of the generation of requirements specification in natural language using objects uml models and domain ontology. Procedia Computer Science, 189, 328–334. AI in Computational Linguistics. DOI: 10.1016/j.procs.2021.05.102.
Anis R. Amna and Geert Poels. 2022. Ambiguity in user stories: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 145, 106824. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106824.
Anis R. Amna, Yves Wautelet, Stephan Poelmans, Samedi Heng, and Geert Poels. 2025. The ambitrus framework for identifying potential ambiguity in user stories. Journal of Systems and Software, 223, 112357. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.112357.
B. Anda, K. Hansen, and G. Sand. 2009. An investigation of use case quality in a large safety-critical software development project. Information and Software Technology, 51, 12, 1699–1711. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.005.
Kent Beck and Martin Fowler. 2000. Planning Extreme Programming. (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA. isbn: 0201710919.
R. Beg, Q. Abbas, and A. Joshi. 2008. A method to deal with the type of lexical ambiguity in a software requirement specification document. In 2008 First International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology. IEEE, Nagpur, India, 1212–1215. DOI: 10.1109/ICETET.2008.160.
Elizabeth Bjarnason and Helen Sharp. 2017. The role of distances in requirements communication: a case study. Requirements Engineering, 22, 1, 1–26. DOI: 10.1007/s00766-015-0233-3.
Giuliano Casale et al. 2016. Current and future challenges of software engineering for services and applications. Procedia Computer Science, 97, 34–42.
Y. Chernak. 1996. A statistical approach to the inspection checklist formal synthesis and improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22, 12, 866–874. DOI: 10.1109/32.553635.
Raffaele Fabio Ciriello, Alexander Richter, Gerhard Schwabe, and Lars Mathiassen. 2023. The multiplexity of diagrams and prototypes in requirements development. Information and Organization, 33, 3, 100476. DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2023.100476.
Mike Cohn. 2004. User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 4.
Gretchen T. De Macedo, Awdren Fontão, and Bruno Gadelha. 2023. Uiprotocheck: a checklist for semantic inspection of user interface prototypes. In Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Campo Grande, Brazil, 485–490. isbn: 9798400707872. DOI: 10.1145/3613372.3613376.
J. Doe. 2011. Recommended practice for software requirements specifications (ieee). [link]. Accessed: 2021-03-11. (2011).
Clara Fonseca, Luciana Zaina, and Anna Marques. 2024. Avaliação de métodos para elicitação e especificação de requisitos de usabilidade com histórias de usuário: um experimento controlado. In Anais do XXXVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software. SBC, Curitiba/PR, 257–268. DOI: 10.5753/sbes.2024.3413.
Richard P. Bagozzi Fred D. Davis and Paul R. Warshaw. 1998. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, Volume 35, Issue 8.
Samuel A. Fricker, Kurt Schneider, Farnaz Fotrousi, and Christoph Thuemmler. 2016. Workshop videos for requirements communication. Requirements Engineering, 21, 4, 521–552. DOI: 10.1007/s00766-015-0231-5.
S. Jaiswal and S. Venkataraman. 2025. Development and validation of a framework of metrics to evaluate prototypes. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. HCII 2025. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 15795. M. Schrepp, (Ed.) Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-93224-3_6.
Ron Jeffries. 2001. Essential XP: card, conversation, and confirmation. XP Magazine, 30.
J. Jia, X. Yang, R. Zhang, and X. Liu. 2019. Understanding software developers’ cognition in agile requirements engineering. Science of Computer Programming, 178, 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.scico.2019.03.005.
Oliver Laitenberger, Colin Atkinson, Maud Schlich, and Khaled El Emam. 2000. An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in uml design documents. Journal of Systems and Software, 53, 2, 183–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(00)00052-2.
Nayane Maia, Ana Oran, and Bruno Gadelha. 2025. Sweetcomp: a framework for software testing competency assessment. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS. INSTICC. SciTePress, 185–192. isbn: 978-989-758-749-8. DOI: 10.5220/0013276600003929.
Thiago Martins, Ana Carolina Oran, and Lucas Araujo. 2025. Evaluantion and verification of requirements artifacrts. a checklist applied to user stories and prototypes - artifacts of study. (Oct. 2025). DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30347326.
Thiago Martins, Ana Carolina Oran, and Lucas Araujo. 2025. Vusp dataset. (Oct. 2025). DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30333919.
Juliana Medeiros, Alexandre Vasconcelos, Carla Silva, and Miguel Goulão. 2018. Quality of software requirements specification in agile projects: a crosscase analysis of six companies. Journal of Systems and Software, 142, 171–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.04.064.
Jakub Mikołaj Mund. 2017. Measurement-based quality assessment of requirements specifications for software-intensive systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München.
Ana Carolina Oran, Gleison Santos, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2021. A framework for evaluating and improving requirements specifications based on the developers and testers perspective. Requirements Engineering, 26, 4, 481–508.
Jennifer Preece, Helen Sharp, and Yvonne Rogers. 2015. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. (4th ed.). Wiley, Hoboken.
M.R. Raja Ramesh and Ch. Satyananda Reddy. 2021. Metrics for software requirements specification quality quantification. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 96, 107445. DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107445.
G. Reggio, M. Leotta, F. Ricca, and D. Clerissi. 2018. Dusm: a method for requirements specification and refinement based on disciplined use cases and screen mockups. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 33, 5, 918–939. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-018-1866-8.
F. Ricca, G. Scanniello, M. Torchiano, G. Reggio, and E. Astesiano. 2014. Assessing the effect of screen mockups on the comprehension of functional requirements. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 24, 1–38. DOI: 10.1145/2629457.
Henrique F. Soares, Nicolli S.R. Alves, Thiago S. Mendes, Manoel Mendonça, and Rodrigo O. Spínola. 2015. Investigating the link between user stories and documentation debt on software projects. In 2015 12th International Conference on Information Technology - New Generations, 385–390. DOI: 10.1109/ITNG.2015.68.
Ian Sommerville. 2015. Software Engineering. (10th ed.). “A way to make systems do what we want is through requirements”. Pearson, 120.
Keith S. Taber. 2018. The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 6, 1273–1296. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
Thomas Thelin, Per Runeson, Claes Wohlin, Thomas Olsson, and Carina Andersson. 2004. Evaluation of usage-based reading—conclusions after three experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 9, 1, 77–110. DOI: 10.1023/B:EMSE.0000013515.86806.d4.
Karl Wiegers and Joy Beatty. 2013. Software Requirements. (3rd ed.). Microsoft Press, Redmond.
Anis R. Amna and Geert Poels. 2022. Ambiguity in user stories: a systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 145, 106824. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2022.106824.
Anis R. Amna, Yves Wautelet, Stephan Poelmans, Samedi Heng, and Geert Poels. 2025. The ambitrus framework for identifying potential ambiguity in user stories. Journal of Systems and Software, 223, 112357. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.112357.
B. Anda, K. Hansen, and G. Sand. 2009. An investigation of use case quality in a large safety-critical software development project. Information and Software Technology, 51, 12, 1699–1711. DOI: 10.1016/j.infsof.2009.04.005.
Kent Beck and Martin Fowler. 2000. Planning Extreme Programming. (1st ed.). Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., USA. isbn: 0201710919.
R. Beg, Q. Abbas, and A. Joshi. 2008. A method to deal with the type of lexical ambiguity in a software requirement specification document. In 2008 First International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering and Technology. IEEE, Nagpur, India, 1212–1215. DOI: 10.1109/ICETET.2008.160.
Elizabeth Bjarnason and Helen Sharp. 2017. The role of distances in requirements communication: a case study. Requirements Engineering, 22, 1, 1–26. DOI: 10.1007/s00766-015-0233-3.
Giuliano Casale et al. 2016. Current and future challenges of software engineering for services and applications. Procedia Computer Science, 97, 34–42.
Y. Chernak. 1996. A statistical approach to the inspection checklist formal synthesis and improvement. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 22, 12, 866–874. DOI: 10.1109/32.553635.
Raffaele Fabio Ciriello, Alexander Richter, Gerhard Schwabe, and Lars Mathiassen. 2023. The multiplexity of diagrams and prototypes in requirements development. Information and Organization, 33, 3, 100476. DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2023.100476.
Mike Cohn. 2004. User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. Addison-Wesley, Boston, 4.
Gretchen T. De Macedo, Awdren Fontão, and Bruno Gadelha. 2023. Uiprotocheck: a checklist for semantic inspection of user interface prototypes. In Proceedings of the XXXVII Brazilian Symposium on Software Engineering (SBES ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, Campo Grande, Brazil, 485–490. isbn: 9798400707872. DOI: 10.1145/3613372.3613376.
J. Doe. 2011. Recommended practice for software requirements specifications (ieee). [link]. Accessed: 2021-03-11. (2011).
Clara Fonseca, Luciana Zaina, and Anna Marques. 2024. Avaliação de métodos para elicitação e especificação de requisitos de usabilidade com histórias de usuário: um experimento controlado. In Anais do XXXVIII Simpósio Brasileiro de Engenharia de Software. SBC, Curitiba/PR, 257–268. DOI: 10.5753/sbes.2024.3413.
Richard P. Bagozzi Fred D. Davis and Paul R. Warshaw. 1998. User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, Volume 35, Issue 8.
Samuel A. Fricker, Kurt Schneider, Farnaz Fotrousi, and Christoph Thuemmler. 2016. Workshop videos for requirements communication. Requirements Engineering, 21, 4, 521–552. DOI: 10.1007/s00766-015-0231-5.
S. Jaiswal and S. Venkataraman. 2025. Development and validation of a framework of metrics to evaluate prototypes. In Design, User Experience, and Usability. HCII 2025. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 15795. M. Schrepp, (Ed.) Springer, Cham. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-93224-3_6.
Ron Jeffries. 2001. Essential XP: card, conversation, and confirmation. XP Magazine, 30.
J. Jia, X. Yang, R. Zhang, and X. Liu. 2019. Understanding software developers’ cognition in agile requirements engineering. Science of Computer Programming, 178, 1–19. DOI: 10.1016/j.scico.2019.03.005.
Oliver Laitenberger, Colin Atkinson, Maud Schlich, and Khaled El Emam. 2000. An experimental comparison of reading techniques for defect detection in uml design documents. Journal of Systems and Software, 53, 2, 183–204. DOI: 10.1016/S0164-1212(00)00052-2.
Nayane Maia, Ana Oran, and Bruno Gadelha. 2025. Sweetcomp: a framework for software testing competency assessment. In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 2: ICEIS. INSTICC. SciTePress, 185–192. isbn: 978-989-758-749-8. DOI: 10.5220/0013276600003929.
Thiago Martins, Ana Carolina Oran, and Lucas Araujo. 2025. Evaluantion and verification of requirements artifacrts. a checklist applied to user stories and prototypes - artifacts of study. (Oct. 2025). DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30347326.
Thiago Martins, Ana Carolina Oran, and Lucas Araujo. 2025. Vusp dataset. (Oct. 2025). DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30333919.
Juliana Medeiros, Alexandre Vasconcelos, Carla Silva, and Miguel Goulão. 2018. Quality of software requirements specification in agile projects: a crosscase analysis of six companies. Journal of Systems and Software, 142, 171–194. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2018.04.064.
Jakub Mikołaj Mund. 2017. Measurement-based quality assessment of requirements specifications for software-intensive systems. Ph.D. Dissertation. Technische Universität München.
Ana Carolina Oran, Gleison Santos, Bruno Gadelha, and Tayana Conte. 2021. A framework for evaluating and improving requirements specifications based on the developers and testers perspective. Requirements Engineering, 26, 4, 481–508.
Jennifer Preece, Helen Sharp, and Yvonne Rogers. 2015. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. (4th ed.). Wiley, Hoboken.
M.R. Raja Ramesh and Ch. Satyananda Reddy. 2021. Metrics for software requirements specification quality quantification. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 96, 107445. DOI: 10.1016/j.compeleceng.2021.107445.
G. Reggio, M. Leotta, F. Ricca, and D. Clerissi. 2018. Dusm: a method for requirements specification and refinement based on disciplined use cases and screen mockups. Journal of Computer Science and Technology, 33, 5, 918–939. DOI: 10.1007/s11390-018-1866-8.
F. Ricca, G. Scanniello, M. Torchiano, G. Reggio, and E. Astesiano. 2014. Assessing the effect of screen mockups on the comprehension of functional requirements. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM), 24, 1–38. DOI: 10.1145/2629457.
Henrique F. Soares, Nicolli S.R. Alves, Thiago S. Mendes, Manoel Mendonça, and Rodrigo O. Spínola. 2015. Investigating the link between user stories and documentation debt on software projects. In 2015 12th International Conference on Information Technology - New Generations, 385–390. DOI: 10.1109/ITNG.2015.68.
Ian Sommerville. 2015. Software Engineering. (10th ed.). “A way to make systems do what we want is through requirements”. Pearson, 120.
Keith S. Taber. 2018. The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48, 6, 1273–1296. DOI: 10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2.
Thomas Thelin, Per Runeson, Claes Wohlin, Thomas Olsson, and Carina Andersson. 2004. Evaluation of usage-based reading—conclusions after three experiments. Empirical Software Engineering, 9, 1, 77–110. DOI: 10.1023/B:EMSE.0000013515.86806.d4.
Karl Wiegers and Joy Beatty. 2013. Software Requirements. (3rd ed.). Microsoft Press, Redmond.
Published
2025-11-04
How to Cite
MARTINS, Thiago S.; ARAÚJO, Lucas S.; ORAN, Ana Carolina.
Evaluation and verification of requirements artifacts: A Checklist applied to User Stories and Prototype. In: BRAZILIAN SOFTWARE QUALITY SYMPOSIUM (SBQS), 24. , 2025, São José dos Campos/SP.
Anais [...].
Porto Alegre: Sociedade Brasileira de Computação,
2025
.
p. 173-183.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbqs.2025.13979.
