| name | afrexai-ux-research-engine |
| description | Complete UX Research & Design system — user discovery, persona building, journey mapping, usability testing, research synthesis, and design validation. Zero dependencies. |
UX Research Engine ⚡
Complete UX research methodology — from discovery to validated design decisions. No scripts, no APIs, no dependencies. Pure agent skill.
Phase 1: Research Planning
Research Brief YAML
project: "[Product/Feature Name]"
research_question: "[What do we need to learn?]"
business_context:
objective: "[Business goal this research supports]"
decision: "[What decision will this research inform?]"
stakeholders: ["PM", "Design Lead", "Engineering"]
deadline: "YYYY-MM-DD"
scope:
product_area: "[Feature/flow being studied]"
user_segment: "[Who are we studying?]"
geographic: "[Regions/markets]"
methodology: "[See selection matrix below]"
sample_size: "[See calculator below]"
timeline:
planning: "Week 1"
recruiting: "Week 1-2"
fieldwork: "Week 2-3"
analysis: "Week 3-4"
reporting: "Week 4"
budget:
participant_incentives: "$X"
tools: "$X"
total: "$X"
success_criteria:
- "[Specific insight we need]"
- "[Confidence level required]"
- "[Actionable output format]"
Method Selection Matrix
| Method | Best For | Sample Size | Time | Cost | Confidence |
|---|
| User Interviews | Deep "why" understanding, exploring unknowns | 5-15 | 2-4 weeks | $$ | High (qualitative) |
| Usability Testing | Finding interaction problems, validating flows | 5-8 per round | 1-2 weeks | $$ | High (behavioral) |
| Surveys | Quantifying attitudes, measuring satisfaction | 100-400+ | 1-2 weeks | $ | High (statistical) |
| Card Sorting | Information architecture, navigation labels | 15-30 (open), 30+ (closed) | 1 week | $ | Medium |
| Diary Studies | Long-term behavior, context of use | 10-15 | 2-6 weeks | $$$ | High (longitudinal) |
| A/B Testing | Comparing specific design variants | 1000+ per variant | 1-4 weeks | $ | Very High |
| Contextual Inquiry | Understanding real environment, workflows | 4-8 | 2-3 weeks | $$$ | Very High |
| Tree Testing | Validating IA without visual design | 50+ | 1 week | $ | High |
| First-Click Testing | Navigation effectiveness | 30-50 | 1 week | $ | Medium |
| Concept Testing | Early-stage idea validation | 8-15 | 1-2 weeks | $$ | Medium |
| Heuristic Evaluation | Expert review of existing UI | 3-5 evaluators | 2-3 days | $ | Medium |
| Competitive UX Audit | Understanding market standards | N/A | 1 week | $ | Low-Medium |
Decision Tree: Which Method?
Do you know WHAT the problem is?
├── NO → Generative Research
│ ├── Need context? → Contextual Inquiry
│ ├── Need attitudes? → User Interviews
│ ├── Need behaviors over time? → Diary Study
│ └── Need broad patterns? → Survey (exploratory)
│
└── YES → Evaluative Research
├── Have a prototype/product?
│ ├── YES → Usability Testing
│ │ ├── Early concept → Concept Test (paper/low-fi)
│ │ ├── Key flow → Task-based Usability Test
│ │ └── Comparing options → A/B Test
│ └── NO →
│ ├── Testing IA → Card Sort / Tree Test
│ └── Testing content → First-Click Test
└── Need expert opinion fast? → Heuristic Evaluation
Sample Size Calculator
Qualitative (interviews, usability):
- 5 users find ~85% of usability issues (Nielsen)
- 8-12 for thematic saturation in interviews
- 15+ for diverse populations or complex domains
- Rule: keep going until you hear the same things 3x
Quantitative (surveys):
| Population | 90% Confidence ±5% | 95% Confidence ±5% | 99% Confidence ±5% |
|---|
| 100 | 74 | 80 | 87 |
| 500 | 176 | 217 | 285 |
| 1,000 | 214 | 278 | 399 |
| 10,000 | 264 | 370 | 622 |
| 100,000+ | 271 | 384 | 660 |
A/B Tests:
- MDE (Minimum Detectable Effect) drives sample size
- 5% MDE, 80% power, 95% confidence → ~1,600 per variant
- 2% MDE → ~10,000 per variant
- Always run for full business cycles (min 1 week)
Phase 2: Participant Recruiting
Screener Template
screener:
title: "[Study Name] Participant Screener"
target_profile:
demographics:
age_range: "[e.g., 25-45]"
location: "[e.g., US-based]"
language: "[e.g., English-fluent]"
behavioral:
product_usage: "[e.g., Uses [product] 3+ times/week]"
experience_level: "[e.g., 1+ year with similar tools]"
recent_activity: "[e.g., Made a purchase in last 30 days]"
psychographic:
decision_maker: "[e.g., Primary household purchaser]"
tech_comfort: "[e.g., Comfortable with mobile apps]"
screening_questions:
- question: "How often do you use [product category]?"
type: "single-select"
options: ["Daily", "Weekly", "Monthly", "Rarely", "Never"]
qualify: ["Daily", "Weekly"]
disqualify: ["Never"]
- question: "Which of these tools do you currently use?"
type: "multi-select"
options: ["Tool A", "Tool B", "Tool C", ]
[, , , , ]
[, , ]
[, ]
[]
Recruiting Quality Checklist
Phase 3: User Interviews
Interview Guide Template
# Interview Guide: [Study Name]
Duration: 60 minutes
Moderator: [Name]
## Setup (5 min)
- Thank participant, confirm recording consent
- "There are no right or wrong answers — we're learning from YOUR experience"
- "Feel free to be critical — honest feedback helps us improve"
- "I didn't design this, so you won't hurt my feelings"
## Warm-Up (5 min)
- "Tell me about your role and what a typical day looks like"
- "How does [product area] fit into your work?"
## Core Questions (35 min)
### Context & Current Behavior
1. "Walk me through the last time you [did the task we're studying]"
- Probe: "What happened next?"
- Probe: "How did that make you feel?"
- Probe: "What would you have preferred to happen?"
2. "What tools/methods do you currently use for [task]?"
- Probe: "What do you like about that approach?"
- Probe: "What frustrates you?"
- Probe: "How long have you been doing it this way?"
3. "Can you show me how you typically [task]?" (if remote: screen share)
### Pain Points & Needs
4. "What's the hardest part about [task]?"
- Probe: "How often does that happen?"
- Probe: "What do you do when that happens?"
- Probe: "How much time/money does that cost you?"
5. "If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about [experience], what would it be?"
6. "Tell me about a time when [process] went really wrong"
- Probe: "What was the impact?"
- Probe: "How was it resolved?"
### Mental Models
7. "How would you explain [concept] to a colleague?"
8. "What do you expect to happen when you [action]?"
9. "Where would you look for [information/feature]?"
"If you had to choose between [speed vs accuracy / ease vs power], which matters more? Why?"
Show prototype/concept
"What's your first impression?"
"What would you use this for?"
"What's missing?"
"Would this replace what you currently use? Why/why not?"
"Is there anything else about [topic] we should know?"
"Who else should we talk to about this?"
Thank participant, confirm incentive delivery
Interview Quality Rules
- 80/20 rule: Participant talks 80%, you talk 20%
- Never ask "Would you use this?" — people can't predict future behavior
- Ask about past behavior, not hypothetical futures
- Follow the energy — when they get animated, dig deeper
- Silence is a tool — pause 5 seconds after they answer; they'll elaborate
- "Tell me more about that" — your most powerful phrase
- Watch for say/do gaps — note when claimed behavior contradicts observed behavior
- Record everything — audio minimum, video ideal, notes always
Note-Taking Template (Per Interview)
participant:
id: "P01"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
demographics: "[age, role, experience level]"
session_duration: "58 min"
key_quotes:
- quote: "[Exact words]"
timestamp: "12:34"
context: "[What prompted this]"
theme: "[Emerging theme tag]"
observations:
behaviors:
- "[What they DID, not what they said]"
emotions:
- "[Frustration when..., delight when..., confusion at...]"
workarounds:
- "[Creative solutions they've built]"
pain_points:
- pain: "[Specific problem]"
severity: "[1-5]"
frequency: "[daily/weekly/monthly/rarely]"
current_solution: "[How they cope]"
needs:
- need: "[Unmet need identified]"
type: "[functional/emotional/social]"
evidence: "[Quote or behavior that reveals this]"
surprises:
- "[Anything unexpected — these are gold]"
moderator_notes:
Phase 4: Persona Building
Data-Driven Persona Template
persona:
name: "[Realistic name — not cutesy]"
photo: "[Representative stock photo description]"
archetype: "[1-3 word label, e.g., 'The Overwhelmed Manager']"
demographics:
age: "[Range or specific]"
role: "[Job title / life stage]"
experience: "[Years with product/domain]"
tech_proficiency: "[Novice / Intermediate / Advanced / Expert]"
environment: "[Office / remote / mobile / field]"
goals:
primary: "[The #1 thing they're trying to accomplish]"
secondary:
- "[Supporting goal]"
- "[Supporting goal]"
underlying: "[The emotional/social need behind the functional goal]"
frustrations:
- frustration: "[Specific pain point]"
frequency: "[How often — from research data]"
severity: "[1-5]"
current_workaround: "[What they do today]"
evidence: "[P03, P07, P11 mentioned this]"
behaviors:
usage_pattern: "[When, where, how often they engage]"
decision_process: "[How they evaluate options]"
information_sources:
Persona Validation Checklist
Anti-Personas (Who We're NOT Designing For)
anti_persona:
name: "[Label]"
description: "[Who this is]"
why_excluded: "[Business reason — too small a segment, wrong market, etc.]"
risk_if_included: "[What happens to the product if we try to serve them too]"
Phase 5: Journey Mapping
Journey Map Template
journey_map:
title: "[Persona] — [Goal/Scenario]"
persona: "[Which persona]"
scenario: "[Specific situation triggering this journey]"
stages:
- stage: "1. Awareness / Trigger"
duration: "[Time in this stage]"
goals: "[What they want to accomplish]"
actions:
- "[Step they take]"
- "[Step they take]"
touchpoints:
- "[Where they interact — website, app, email, phone, in-person]"
thoughts:
- "\"[What they're thinking — from research]\""
emotions:
rating: 3
feeling: "[Curious but uncertain]"
pain_points:
- "[Problem encountered]"
opportunities:
- "[How we could improve this moment]"
- stage: "2. Consideration / Research"
- stage: "3. Decision / Sign-Up"
- stage: "4. Onboarding / First Use"
Emotion Curve Scoring
Plot emotions across the journey:
5 ★ Delighted ──────────╮ ╭──
4 ☺ Happy │ │
3 😐 Neutral ──╮ │ ╭─────╯
2 😟 Frustrated │ │ │
1 😤 Angry ╰──────╯────╯
Stage1 Stage2 Stage3 Stage4 Stage5
Journey Map Quality Rules
- Based on research, not assumptions (note data source for each insight)
- One persona per map (don't average)
- Include BOTH functional and emotional dimensions
- Identify "moments of truth" — the 2-3 interactions that make or break the experience
- Prioritize opportunities by gap size (desired minus current)
- Include backstage/blueprint layer for service design
Phase 6: Usability Testing
Test Plan Template
usability_test:
study_name: "[Name]"
objective: "[What design question are we answering?]"
format:
type: "[Moderated / Unmoderated]"
location: "[Remote / In-person / Lab]"
device: "[Desktop / Mobile / Tablet / Cross-device]"
duration: "60 min"
recording: "[Screen + audio + face camera]"
prototype:
fidelity: "[Paper / Wireframe / Hi-fi / Live product]"
tool: "[Figma / InVision / Live URL]"
scope: "[Which flows are testable]"
known_limitations: "[What won't work in the prototype]"
participants:
target: 5-8
criteria: "[From screener — link to Phase 2]"
incentive: "$75"
tasks:
- task_id: "T1"
scenario: "You need to [context]. Using this app, [goal]."
success_criteria:
- "[Specific completion definition]"
time_limit: "5 min"
priority: "critical"
metrics:
-
Task Writing Rules
- Set the scene — give context, not instructions ("You want to book a flight to NYC next Friday" NOT "Click the search button")
- Don't use interface words — say "find" not "navigate to," say "purchase" not "add to cart and checkout"
- Make it realistic — use scenarios from actual research data
- One goal per task — don't combine ("book a flight AND a hotel")
- Order: easy → hard — build confidence before complex tasks
Severity Rating Scale
| Severity | Label | Definition | Action |
|---|
| 0 | Not a problem | Disagreement among evaluators, no real issue | None |
| 1 | Cosmetic | Noticed but doesn't affect task completion | Fix if time allows |
| 2 | Minor | Causes hesitation or minor inefficiency | Schedule fix |
| 3 | Major | Causes significant difficulty, workarounds needed | Fix before launch |
| 4 | Catastrophic | Prevents task completion entirely | Fix immediately |
Usability Finding Template
finding:
id: "UF-001"
title: "[Short descriptive title]"
severity: 3
frequency: "4/5 participants"
task: "T2"
observation: "[What happened — factual, behavioral]"
evidence:
- participant: "P01"
behavior: "[What they did]"
quote: "\"[What they said]\""
timestamp: "14:22"
- participant: "P03"
behavior: "[What they did]"
root_cause: "[Why this happened — mental model mismatch, visibility, feedback, etc.]"
recommendation:
change: "[Specific design change]"
rationale: "[Why this will fix it]"
effort: "[S/M/L]"
impact: "[High/Medium/Low]"
heuristic_violated: "[Which Nielsen heuristic, if applicable]"
Nielsen's 10 Heuristics (Quick Reference)
| # | Heuristic | What to Check |
|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Loading indicators, progress bars, confirmation messages |
| 2 | Match real world | Labels match user language, not internal jargon |
| 3 | User control & freedom | Undo, back, cancel, exit are easy to find |
| 4 | Consistency & standards | Same action = same result everywhere |
| 5 | Error prevention | Confirmations, constraints, smart defaults |
| 6 | Recognition > recall | Options visible, not memorized |
| 7 | Flexibility & efficiency | Shortcuts for experts, simple for novices |
| 8 | Aesthetic & minimalist | No unnecessary information competing for attention |
| 9 | Error recovery | Clear error messages with solutions, not codes |
| 10 | Help & documentation | Searchable, task-focused, concise |
Heuristic Evaluation Scorecard
Rate each heuristic 1-5 per screen/flow:
heuristic_audit:
screen: "[Screen/Flow name]"
evaluator: "[Name]"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
scores:
visibility_of_status: 4
real_world_match: 3
user_control: 2
consistency: 4
error_prevention: 3
recognition_over_recall: 4
flexibility_efficiency: 2
aesthetic_minimal: 3
error_recovery: 1
help_documentation: 2
total: 28
grade: "C"
critical_issues:
- heuristic: "Error recovery"
location: "[Where]"
issue: "[What's wrong]"
fix: "[Recommendation]"
Phase 7: Research Synthesis
Affinity Mapping Process
- Extract: Pull every observation, quote, behavior onto individual notes
- Cluster: Group similar notes (bottom-up, not top-down)
- Label: Name each cluster with a theme (use participant language)
- Hierarchy: Group clusters into meta-themes
- Prioritize: Rank by frequency × impact
Theme Template
theme:
name: "[Theme label — use participant language]"
description: "[2-3 sentence summary]"
evidence:
participant_count: "8/12 participants"
segments_affected: ["Persona A", "Persona B"]
quotes:
- participant: "P03"
quote: "\"[Exact quote]\""
- participant: "P07"
quote: "\"[Exact quote]\""
behaviors_observed:
- "[What they did]"
- "[Pattern across participants]"
data_points:
- "[Any quantitative support — survey %, analytics, etc.]"
impact:
on_users: "[How this affects their experience]"
on_business: "[Revenue, retention, acquisition, support cost impact]"
severity: "High"
insight: "[The 'so what' — what does this mean for design?]"
recommendations:
- recommendation: "[Specific, actionable change]"
effort: "M"
impact: "High"
confidence:
Insight Formula
Every insight must follow: Observation + Evidence + So What + Now What
"Users consistently [OBSERVATION] — seen in [X/Y participants, with supporting quotes]. This matters because [SO WHAT — impact on goals/business]. We should [NOW WHAT — specific recommendation]."
Bad insight: "Users found the navigation confusing"
Good insight: "7 of 12 participants couldn't find the settings page within 30 seconds. 4 looked in the profile menu, 2 used search, 1 gave up. This maps to 15% of support tickets ('How do I change my password'). Moving settings to the top-level nav and adding a search shortcut would reduce discovery time and cut related support volume."
Research Scoring Rubric (0-100)
| Dimension | Weight | Criteria |
|---|
| Methodology Rigor | 20% | Right method for question, adequate sample, proper recruiting |
| Data Quality | 15% | Rich observations, real quotes, behavioral evidence |
| Analysis Depth | 20% | Beyond surface themes, root causes identified, patterns across segments |
| Insight Actionability | 25% | Specific recommendations, effort/impact rated, prioritized |
| Presentation Clarity | 10% | Stakeholders can understand and act without explanation |
| Business Connection | 10% | Findings connected to business metrics and goals |
Scoring:
- 90-100: Publication-quality research
- 75-89: Strong actionable research
- 60-74: Adequate — some gaps in methodology or analysis
- 40-59: Weak — findings are surface-level or poorly supported
- Below 40: Redo — methodology flaws undermine findings
Phase 8: Research Report
Executive Summary Template
# [Study Name] — Research Report
## TL;DR (3 bullet max)
- [Most important finding + recommendation]
- [Second most important finding + recommendation]
- [Third most important finding + recommendation]
## Study Overview
- **Method:** [e.g., 12 semi-structured interviews + 5 usability tests]
- **Participants:** [e.g., 12 mid-market SaaS PMs, 2-8 years experience]
- **Duration:** [e.g., 3 weeks, Jan 5-26 2026]
- **Confidence:** [High / Medium / Low — based on sample + methodology]
## Key Findings
### Finding 1: [Title] ⚠️ [Severity: Critical/High/Medium/Low]
**What we found:** [2-3 sentences with evidence]
**Why it matters:** [Business impact]
**Recommendation:** [Specific action]
**Effort:** [S/M/L] | **Impact:** [High/Med/Low]
### Finding 2: [Title]
...
## Personas Updated
[Link to updated persona YAML files]
## Journey Map
[Link to journey map]
## Design Recommendations (Prioritized)
| # | Recommendation | Finding | Effort | Impact | Priority |
|---|---------------|---------|--------|--------|----------|
| 1 | [Action] | F1 | S | High | P0 — Do now |
| 2 | [Action] | F3 | M | High | P1 — Next sprint |
| 3 | [Action] | F2 | L | Medium | P2 — Backlog |
## What We Still Don't Know
- [Open questions for future research]
- [Hypotheses to validate]
## Appendix
- Screener criteria
- Interview guide
- Raw data location
- Participant demographics
Phase 9: Design Validation
Design Critique Framework (CAMPS)
| Dimension | Questions to Ask |
|---|
| Clarity | Can users understand what this is and what to do within 5 seconds? |
| Alignment | Does this solve the problem identified in research? For the right persona? |
| Mental Model | Does it match how users think about this task? (from interview data) |
| Priority | Does the visual hierarchy match user task priority? |
| Simplicity | Can anything be removed without losing function? |
Prototype Review Checklist
design_review:
screen: "[Screen name]"
reviewer: "[Name]"
date: "YYYY-MM-DD"
research_alignment:
- check: "Addresses top pain point from research"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
notes: "[Which finding this addresses]"
- check: "Uses language from user interviews (not internal jargon)"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
- check: "Matches mental model revealed in research"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
- check: "Works for primary persona AND doesn't break for secondary"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
usability:
- check: "Primary action is visually dominant"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
- check: "Error states designed and messaged"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
- check: "Empty states designed (first use, no data, no results)"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
- check: "Loading states designed"
status: "✅ / ❌ / ⚠️"
Phase 10: Research Operations
Research Repository Structure
research/
├── YYYY/
│ ├── Q1/
│ │ ├── [study-name]/
│ │ │ ├── plan.yaml # Research brief
│ │ │ ├── screener.yaml # Recruiting criteria
│ │ │ ├── guide.md # Interview/test guide
│ │ │ ├── notes/ # Per-participant notes
│ │ │ │ ├── P01.yaml
│ │ │ │ └── P02.yaml
│ │ │ ├── synthesis/ # Themes, affinity maps
│ │ │ ├── personas/ # Updated personas
│ │ │ ├── journey-maps/ # Updated maps
│ │ │ ├── report.md # Final report
│ │ │ └── recordings/ # Session recordings (link)
│ │ └── [next-study]/
│ └── Q2/
├── personas/ # Master persona library
│ ├── persona-a.yaml
│ └── persona-b.yaml
├── journey-maps/ # Master journey maps
├── insights-database.yaml # Cross-study insight tracker
└── research-calendar.yaml # Planned studies
Cross-Study Insight Tracker
insights_database:
- insight_id: "INS-001"
theme: "[Category]"
insight: "[The insight]"
first_found: "2026-01-15"
studies: ["Study A", "Study C", "Study F"]
evidence_strength: "Strong"
status: "Addressed"
design_response: "[What was done]"
impact_measured: "[Before/after metric if available]"
Research Impact Tracking
| Metric | How to Measure | Target |
|---|
| Findings → shipped features | % of recommendations implemented within 2 quarters | >60% |
| Pre/post usability scores | SUS score before vs after changes | +10 points |
| Support ticket reduction | Related ticket volume after design change | -25% |
| Task completion rate | Usability test success rate over time | >85% |
| Time on task | Average task time trend | Decreasing |
| Stakeholder confidence | Post-study survey: "How useful was this?" | >4/5 |
Quick Commands
| Command | What It Does |
|---|
| "Plan a research study for [topic]" | Generate research brief YAML |
| "Build a screener for [audience]" | Generate screening questionnaire |
| "Create interview guide for [topic]" | Generate interview questions and structure |
| "Build persona from [data/notes]" | Synthesize data into persona YAML |
| "Map the journey for [persona + goal]" | Generate journey map |
| "Plan usability test for [prototype]" | Generate test plan with tasks |
| "Run heuristic evaluation of [screen/flow]" | Score against Nielsen's 10 |
| "Synthesize findings from [study]" | Generate themes and insights |
| "Write research report for [study]" | Generate executive summary and recommendations |
| "Score this research [report/study]" | Evaluate against quality rubric |
| "Review this design against research" | CAMPS critique + alignment check |
| "Set up research repository" | Create folder structure and templates |
Edge Cases
Small Budget / No Recruiting Budget
- Guerrilla testing: coffee shop intercepts (5 min tests, buy them a coffee)
- Internal users: use colleagues from different departments (not product/design team)
- Social media: post in relevant communities for volunteers
- Existing users: email opt-in for research panel
Remote-Only Research
- Video call with screen share (Zoom, Google Meet)
- Async: Loom recordings of tasks + written responses
- Unmoderated: UserTesting.com, Maze, Lookback
- Diary studies: use messaging apps (WhatsApp, Telegram) for daily check-ins
Stakeholder Pushback ("We don't have time for research")
- "5 users, 1 week, 3 critical findings" — the minimum viable study
- Pair research with existing touchpoints (support calls, sales demos)
- Frame as risk reduction: "Would you rather discover this before or after launch?"
- Show past research ROI (support ticket reduction, conversion improvement)
Conflicting Findings
- Check sample composition — different segments may have different needs
- Prioritize by business impact: which segment is more valuable?
- Run a survey to quantify: "60% prefer A, 40% prefer B"
- Consider designing for both (progressive disclosure, personalization)
International / Cross-Cultural Research
- Don't just translate — localize scenarios and contexts
- Account for cultural response bias (e.g., reluctance to criticize in some cultures)
- Use local moderators when possible
- Adjust incentives to local norms
- Watch for design patterns that don't transfer (icons, colors, reading direction)
Accessibility Research
- Recruit participants with disabilities (screen reader users, motor impairments, cognitive differences)
- Test with actual assistive technology, not simulation
- Include in regular studies (at least 1 participant with accessibility needs per study)
- WCAG compliance testing is NOT a substitute for research with disabled users
Built by AfrexAI — Autonomous Intelligence for Business
