From signup
to the moment it clicks.

No to both. Storyflow does not do interactive prototyping, so if you need a clickable flow for user testing, build it in Figma. It also does not deliver in-app tours, tooltips, or checklists to real users, which is what Appcues, Userpilot, Pendo, and Chameleon exist for, and they are considerably better at it than a canvas could be. Storyflow is the design and agreement surface upstream: where the sequence is laid out, argued about, and decided, with the screens visible in order. Once the flow is settled, the screens go to Figma and the in-app delivery goes to whichever tour tool you use.

Six things. Every screen between the signup button and first value, in order, with real screenshots rather than boxes. Every field and permission the user is asked for, because the count is usually higher than anyone believes. The empty states, which are the first real experience of the product and are almost always written last. The emails and notifications, since half of onboarding happens outside the app. The branches for genuinely different users, such as an invited teammate versus a solo trial. And the drop-off data written on the step it belongs to, so the number sits next to the thing that caused it.

Not during early access. Storyflow is paid-only right now, with plans starting at $9.99 a month, and a Free plan for solo use launches before the end of 2026. Anyone a paid member invites to a board joins free today, which matters here because the people who own pieces of onboarding, lifecycle marketing, support, engineering, rarely have a design tool seat. If you need free this minute, Figma's free tier and Miro's free tier both give you a real canvas, and either will hold a flow map perfectly well. Neither will generate the flow from a description of your product.

Get the funnel numbers from your analytics, Amplitude, Mixpanel, PostHog, whatever you run, then write each completion rate directly on the step it belongs to on the map. This sounds trivial and it changes the conversation completely, because a funnel chart tells you that step four loses forty percent and the map tells you that step four asks for a company size, a team name, and a phone number before showing anything. Then pin a support quote or a note from a session recording beside it. The number tells you where; the screen and the quote tell you why.

It is the point where a new user has experienced the value they came for, and choosing it correctly matters more than any single design decision in the flow. It should be an action the user takes, not a step they complete: created their first board and put something on it, not finished the setup wizard. It should correlate with retention, which you can check rather than guess. And it should be reachable in one session. Teams that pick a vanity milestone, usually completed onboarding, end up optimizing a flow that people finish and then never return to, which is worse than not measuring at all.

You describe the product, who signs up, and what counts as first value. The AI maps a starting flow from that: signup, verification, setup, empty state, first action, and activation, with the likely emails and branch points attached. You start by correcting a proposal rather than drawing from nothing, which is much faster and tends to surface steps you would have forgotten. From there it uses the whole board as context, so you can ask it to map the invited-teammate branch or draft empty state copy for a screen you have already placed, and re-prompting builds around what you have arranged.

Yes, and this is one of the most common structural failures in onboarding. The in-app flow is owned by product and the email sequence is owned by lifecycle marketing, they are designed in different tools by different people, and the user experiences them as one thing. The visible symptom is an email nudging someone to complete a step they finished two days ago, or a welcome sequence that describes a feature the setup flow never mentioned. Putting both on one map, in time order, makes the contradictions obvious in about thirty seconds, which is roughly how long it takes to fix them once someone has seen them.

Yes. Send a view-only link and anyone opens the full map in a browser with no account, and can sign in to comment on the specific step or email they are responding to. This matters more for onboarding than for most design work, because the people who own parts of it are spread across product, engineering, lifecycle, and support, and most of them do not have a design tool licence. If someone should genuinely contribute, invite them to the canvas and they join free as a collaborator. Sharing and commenting work on every paid plan.

Count the steps between the signup button and the activation moment, then count how many of them exist for the user rather than for you. Verification, company size, role, team name, and marketing consent are almost always the second kind. The useful question for each step is whether the product genuinely cannot work without this answer right now, and the honest answer is usually that it could be asked later or inferred. Laying the flow out and marking each step as required, deferrable, or removable is a twenty-minute exercise that regularly removes a third of the flow.