Uxia (uxia.app) platform help — an AI/synthetic-tester usability-testing tool: AI "testers" modeled on demographic/behavioral profiles explore a design, prototype, or live URL and surface UX friction in minutes, returning transcripts, heatmaps, SUS/SUPR-Q scores, accessibility checks, and reports across five test types. Figma/Jira/Notion/Linear integrations plus a marketed-but-undocumented MCP link to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini; no public REST API. Use when setting up an AI user test, testing a Figma prototype or live site with synthetic testers, reading a SUS/SUPR-Q or accessibility result, wondering how realistic AI testers are or whether they replace real users, hitting the free-trial credit limit, or exporting results without an API. Do NOT use for comparing usability/research/validator tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), real-human usability testing (use /sales-userbrain or /sales-uxtweak), or synthetic-persona interviews (use /sales-syntheticusers).
Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.
Quelldateien prüfen
Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Ein direkter Befehl überspringt den Prüf-Prompt. Prüfen Sie die Quelle, bevor Sie ihn ausführen.
Uxia (uxia.app) platform help — an AI/synthetic-tester usability-testing tool: AI "testers" modeled on demographic/behavioral profiles explore a design, prototype, or live URL and surface UX friction in minutes, returning transcripts, heatmaps, SUS/SUPR-Q scores, accessibility checks, and reports across five test types. Figma/Jira/Notion/Linear integrations plus a marketed-but-undocumented MCP link to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini; no public REST API. Use when setting up an AI user test, testing a Figma prototype or live site with synthetic testers, reading a SUS/SUPR-Q or accessibility result, wondering how realistic AI testers are or whether they replace real users, hitting the free-trial credit limit, or exporting results without an API. Do NOT use for comparing usability/research/validator tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), real-human usability testing (use /sales-userbrain or /sales-uxtweak), or synthetic-persona interviews (use /sales-syntheticusers).
argument-hint
[describe what you need help with in Uxia]
license
MIT
version
1.0.1
tags
["sales","pre-launch","platform"]
Uxia Platform Help
Uxia (uxia.app) is an AI / synthetic-tester usability-testing tool — the synthetic counterpart to
the real-human usability tools (Userbrain, UXtweak). Instead of recruiting people, Uxia runs AI "testers"
(LLM agents modeled on demographic + behavioral profiles + any uploaded persona docs) that explore your
design, prototype, or live URL, "think aloud," and surface UX friction in ~5 min → transcripts,
heatmaps, SUS / SUPR-Q usability scores, accessibility checks, and actionable reports across five test
types: AI User Test, AI Live Test (paste a live URL), AI User Research, Accessibility Test,
and a Human Test (real humans — enterprise/custom-plan only).
Two things to say almost every time (both are Step 4 imperatives):
Synthetic ≠ real ≠ demand. AI testers are great for early iteration (stress-test flows 20× a
sprint) but don't replace real humans (the founder says so), and a smooth run does not prove
anyone will pay — validate the final version with real testers (/sales-userbrain, /sales-uxtweak)
and take a build-or-not go/no-go to a real behavior test (/sales-idea-validation).
No public REST API — only a marketed-but-undocumented MCP link (Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini; no docs/
endpoints/schemas). Any "pipe results into my CRM/warehouse/Slack" ask is manual export or the MCP
link — discover MCP tools at runtime, don't invent endpoints; for a documented pipeline route to
/sales-userintuition (or /sales-syntheticusers / /sales-ditto).
Step 1 — Gather context
If references/learnings.md exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge.
Ask only what you can't infer:
What do you want from Uxia?
A) Set up a test — a test type (AI User Test / Live Test / User Research / Accessibility), tasks, Figma prototype or live URL
B) Configure testers — define an audience (demographics/tech literacy), upload persona docs, set tester count
C) Read results — transcripts, heatmaps, SUS/SUPR-Q scores, the report
D) Judge validity — how realistic the synthetic testers are, whether they replace real users
E) Get data out / automate — export a report or wire up the MCP link (no REST API)
F) Choose — Uxia (synthetic) vs Userbrain/UXtweak (real humans) vs Synthetic Users/Ditto (synthetic interviews)
Are you testing something you've already built/designed, or still deciding whether to build? The
second is an idea-validation question, not a usability question — flag it in Step 2.
Skip-ahead: if the user's prompt already names the task and their question is specific, go to Step 3.
Step 2 — Route or answer directly
If the user's question is about…
Route to
Real-human think-aloud usability testing (Uxia's testers are synthetic)
/sales-userbrain {question}
Card sorting / tree testing / first-click IA tests, or the broad usability suite
/sales-uxtweak {question}
Comparing usability/research/validator tools across the market, or the validate-before-building method
/sales-idea-validation {question}
Synthetic interviews/surveys against AI personas (a different job from usability testing)
/sales-syntheticusers or /sales-ditto{question}
An API / webhook-native research or interview pipeline (Uxia has no public API)
/sales-userintuition {question}
Running a real behavior demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale)
/sales-idea-validation or /sales-funnel{question}
When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: /sales-userbrain {original question}"
Otherwise, answer Uxia-specific questions using Step 3.
Step 3 — Uxia platform reference
Read references/platform-guide.md for the full reference — the capability/automation-surface table
(five test types, each UI-only / MCP-only), the synthetic-tester data model, best-effort pricing and plan
gates (free-trial credits, the flat-monthly-vs-credit ambiguity, the enterprise-gated Human Test + SSO/SCIM),
the SUS/SUPR-Q frameworks, the Figma/Jira/Notion/Linear integrations, and the no-API / MCP data-out playbook.
Uxia has no public REST API, so references/uxia-api-reference.md documents the (undocumented) MCP
surface and integrations, not endpoints.
Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.
Step 4 — Actionable guidance
You no longer need the platform guide — focus on the user's specific situation.
Say the caveat: synthetic testers are an AI opinion, not real behavior, and not demand. Whatever the
user asks, make explicit that Uxia's testers are AI, not real people — great for early-stage
iteration (find friction, test flows many times cheaply) but not a replacement for real humans
(they lack genuine intuition/emotion/randomness), and a clean synthetic run does not prove anyone
will pay. Recommend the pattern the founder describes: iterate with synthetic testers, then
validate the final version with real testers (/sales-userbrain, /sales-uxtweak). If the real
question is build-or-not, take the go/no-go from a real behavior test via /sales-idea-validation.
Flag the automation reality: no public REST API, MCP marketed but undocumented. When automation or
export comes up, state plainly there is no public REST API and no webhooks — the only programmatic
surface is a marketed MCP link (ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini) with no published docs, endpoints, or
schemas. Tell the user to discover the MCP tools at runtime and not to invent endpoints; "sync to
HubSpot/Snowflake/Slack" is a manual export otherwise. For a documented pipeline, route to
/sales-userintuition (real-human, REST API + webhooks + MCP) or /sales-syntheticusers / /sales-ditto
(synthetic studies with a real API).
Read the SUS/SUPR-Q scores as directional, not absolute. Uxia scores designs with the standard
System Usability Scale (SUS) and SUPR-Q frameworks — useful for ranking variants against each
other, but because the raters are AI, treat the absolute number as directional and trust relative
comparisons (variant A vs B) over a single score. Pair the score with the qualitative transcripts and
heatmaps — the why the testers struggled — which is the more actionable output.
Fix shallow feedback with better tasks, not more testers. If the AI testers "narrate the screen" or
say "looks easy," that's a task-design problem — write goal-based scenario tasks with no hints
("You want to cancel your subscription — do it"), add open follow-up questions, and define a
specific audience (demographics + uploaded persona docs) so a "novice" behaves differently from an
"expert." A handful of testers per audience surfaces most friction; more mostly repeat it.
Present all pricing as best-effort and point to uxia.app. Pricing is inconsistent across sources
— the site shows a Free trial (~50 credits, 1 audience, ~5 testers/test) plus a Custom/Enterprise
tier (unlimited, audience enrichment, Human Test, SSO/SCIM), while third-party listings describe a
flat monthly Basic/Pro model ("unlimited tests, no 6-figure contracts"). Say the number is
best-effort, note the Human Test and enterprise security are custom-plan-only, and point to
uxia.app/pricing to confirm.
If you discover a gotcha or tip not in references/learnings.md, append it there with today's date.
Gotchas
Best-effort from research (2026-07) — pricing, plan gates, the five test types, SUS/SUPR-Q scoring, and the (undocumented) MCP/integration surface move; verify at uxia.app.
Synthetic ≠ real ≠ demand. Uxia's testers are AI, not humans. Use them for fast early iteration,
but they don't replace real users (the founder agrees) and a clean run is not proof anyone will
buy — validate the final design with real testers (/sales-userbrain//sales-uxtweak) and take a
build-or-not go/no-go to a real behavior test (/sales-idea-validation).
It's "not just an LLM," but it's still an LLM under the hood. Uxia layers personas, task simulation,
consistency rules, and aggregation on an LLM — better than raw ChatGPT, but still can be confidently wrong and skews agreeable/generic.
No public REST API; MCP is marketed but undocumented. The only automation surface is an MCP link to
Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini with no published endpoints/schemas — don't invent them; discover at runtime.
Everything else is manual export. Route a documented pipeline to /sales-userintuition.
The Human Test is enterprise-only (as are audience enrichment, SSO/SCIM) — the free/self-serve tier is synthetic testers only.
Pricing is ambiguous — marketing says "flat pricing, unlimited tests"; the site shows a credit-limited
free trial + Custom. Treat every figure as best-effort and confirm at uxia.app/pricing.
SUS/SUPR-Q from AI raters is directional. The scores use real usability frameworks but the raters are
synthetic — read them as a relative signal between variants, backed by the transcripts/heatmaps, not
an absolute usability verdict.
Related skills
/sales-userbrain — The real-human video-first usability peer — the pick to validate a final design with actual testers after iterating with Uxia's synthetic ones. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code
/sales-uxtweak — The real-human usability + information-architecture suite (card sort, tree test, first-click) — route here for IA methods Uxia doesn't do, or to test with real users. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxtweak -a claude-code
/sales-syntheticusers — The synthetic-research peer (AI-moderated interviews/surveys vs personas, with a real REST API) — a different job from Uxia's task-based usability testing. Its synthetic message/creative-tester sibling is /sales-evelance (AI personas score copy/creative/product on 12 psychology metrics) — reach for Evelance when the question is "does my message land", Uxia when it's "is my design usable". Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-syntheticusers -a claude-code
/sales-idea-validation — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method + the full research/usability/validator tool landscape (use this to decide build-or-not; a passing synthetic usability test is not demand). Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-idea-validation -a claude-code
/sales-userintuition — The API/webhook/MCP-native real-human interview peer — the pick when you need a documented, programmatic research pipeline Uxia can't offer. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -a claude-code
/sales-funnel — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page that turns a design hypothesis into a real demand test. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-funnel -a claude-code
/sales-do — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code
Examples
Example 1: "Are these AI testers real enough to trust — do they replace real user testing?"
User says: "Uxia gives me feedback in 5 minutes from AI testers. Can I just use this instead of recruiting real users?"
Skill does: Explains Uxia's testers are synthetic (LLM agents on demographic/behavioral profiles),
not people — useful for fast early iteration but not a replacement for real humans (they lack real
intuition/emotion/randomness, skew agreeable), and a smooth synthetic run is not proof anyone will pay.
Recommends the founder's pattern — iterate with synthetic testers, then validate the final version with
real testers (/sales-userbrain, /sales-uxtweak) — and, if the question is build-or-not, taking the
go/no-go from a real behavior test via /sales-idea-validation.
Result: The user keeps Uxia for cheap iteration but plans a real-human validation round before shipping.
Example 2: "How do I get every finished Uxia test into our data warehouse / Slack automatically?" (developer/automation)
User says: "I want each completed test's transcript and report to flow into Snowflake and post a summary to Slack."
Skill does: States plainly Uxia has no public REST API and no webhooks — the only programmatic
surface is a marketed MCP link to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini with no published endpoints or schemas, so
you must discover the MCP tools at runtime and not invent endpoints; absent MCP access, data-out is
manual export of the report/transcript to run your own ETL. If a documented live pipeline is required,
routes to /sales-userintuition (REST API + HMAC webhooks + MCP) or /sales-syntheticusers /
/sales-ditto (synthetic studies with a real API), noting those are interview/survey studies, not Uxia's
task-based usability tests.
Result: The user stops hunting for a REST API that doesn't exist and either uses the MCP link or a manual export routine.
Example 3: "What does the free plan give me, and how does Uxia score my design?"
User says: "I'm a solo maker. What can I do on Uxia's free tier, and what's this SUS/SUPR-Q number it shows?"
Skill does: Gives best-effort free-tier limits (a credit-limited free trial — ~50 credits, 1
audience, ~5 testers/test — with the Human Test, audience enrichment, and SSO/SCIM gated to
Custom/Enterprise), flags that pricing is inconsistent (flat-monthly marketing vs on-site credits)
and points to uxia.app/pricing. Explains the scores use the standard SUS and SUPR-Q frameworks
but, because the raters are AI, to read them as a relative signal between design variants (backed by
the transcripts and heatmaps), not an absolute usability verdict.
Result: The maker runs a free-trial test, compares two variants by relative SUS, and reads the transcripts for the why.
Troubleshooting
"The AI testers just narrate the screen / say it's easy — no real insight"
Symptom: Synthetic testers describe the page or say "looks easy to use," with nothing actionable.
Cause: Vague, leading, or hint-laden tasks, or an undefined audience, so the AI has nothing real to do.
Solution: Write goal-based scenario tasks with no hints ("You want to return an item you bought
last week — do it"), add open follow-up questions ("what did you expect?", "what was confusing?"), and
define a specific audience (demographics + tech literacy + uploaded persona docs) so a "novice" behaves
differently from an "expert." Read the transcripts/heatmaps for the why, and remember even a clean
result proves the design works in simulation, not that anyone will pay.
"I can't find Uxia's API to automate this"
Symptom: The user is looking for REST endpoints, webhooks, or a Zapier app and can't find them.
Cause: Uxia has no public REST API and no webhooks — the only automation surface is a marketed
but undocumented MCP connection to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini (no published endpoints/schemas).
Solution: Don't invent endpoints — if you have MCP access, discover the tools at runtime; otherwise
data-out is manual export of the report/transcript. For a documented, API-native pipeline, use
/sales-userintuition or /sales-syntheticusers / /sales-ditto (synthetic studies with a real API).
"Can I test with real humans, and why is my score different from a real test?"
Symptom: The user wants real-human testing on Uxia, or distrusts the AI SUS/SUPR-Q number.
Cause: Uxia's default testers are synthetic; the Human Test is gated to the Custom/Enterprise
plan, and AI raters produce a directional, not absolute, usability score.
Solution: On self-serve, expect synthetic testers only — for real humans upgrade to the enterprise
Human Test or run a real-human tool (/sales-userbrain, /sales-uxtweak). Treat the AI SUS/SUPR-Q as a
relative signal between variants (trust A-vs-B ranking over the absolute number), backed by transcripts.
