CX Error Analyzer（CXエラーシナリオ分析）

Overview

CX Error Analyzer は、システムやアプリケーションのエラーシナリオを顧客体験（Customer Experience）の観点から体系的に分析・評価するスキルです。6軸の定量評価フレームワークにより、エラーが顧客体験に与える影響を可視化し、Impact vs Effort マトリクスで改善施策の優先順位を決定します。

When to Use

• エラーシナリオの顧客体験を評価するとき
• エラーメッセージの品質を改善するとき
• エラー改善の優先順位を付けるとき
• CX観点でのエラーハンドリング改善レポートを作成するとき
• エラー体験の定量的評価を行うとき
• 新機能リリース前にエラーシナリオのCXレビューを実施するとき
• サポートチケット削減のための改善施策を検討するとき

Prerequisites

• Error data: Access to error logs, support tickets, or documented error scenarios
• User journey map (optional): Understanding of user flows helps contextualize error impact
• Stakeholder access (optional): Ability to interview developers, support staff, or QA for error pattern insights
• Business metrics (optional): Support cost data, churn rates, or CSAT scores for ROI estimation

Output

This skill provides conversational guidance and analysis rather than file generation. Outputs include:

• Structured error scenario inventories with classifications
• Multi-axis CX evaluation scores with rationale
• Prioritized improvement recommendations (Quick Wins, Strategic Projects)
• Before/after error message comparisons
• ROI estimates and business impact projections

When formal documentation is needed, use Workflow 5 to generate a comprehensive report using the provided templates.

Workflows

Workflow 1: Error Scenario Inventory（エラーシナリオ棚卸し）

Enumerate and classify all error scenarios in the target system or feature.

1. List all error scenarios in the system or feature under analysis
   • Review source code, API documentation, and existing error logs
   • Interview stakeholders (developers, support, QA) for known error patterns
   • Examine user feedback and support ticket data for unreported errors
2. Classify each error into one of 6 categories:
   • Validation: Input format, required fields, range limits
   • System: Server errors, database failures, memory issues
   • Network: Timeout, connection loss, DNS failure
   • Auth: Authentication failure, session expiry, permission denied
   • Business Logic: Rule violations, state conflicts, limit exceeded
   • External: Third-party API failures, payment gateway errors, integration issues
3. Map each error to a user journey stage:
   • Discovery (browsing, searching)
   • Onboarding (registration, initial setup)
   • Core Task (primary feature usage)
   • Checkout (purchase, submission, completion)
   • Support (help, account management)
4. Assign error IDs: ERR-001, ERR-002, ERR-003...
5. Capture current state for each error:
   • Current error message text (exact wording)
   • Current UX flow (what happens visually)
   • Current recovery path (how the user proceeds)

Workflow 2: Multi-Axis CX Evaluation（多軸CX評価）

Evaluate each error scenario across 6 dimensions using a 1-5 scale.

1. Load evaluation criteria from references/cx_evaluation_methodology.md
2. Evaluate each error scenario on 6 axes (1-5 scale each):
   • Impact Severity (影響度): How much does this error disrupt the user's task?
   • Frequency (頻度): How often do users encounter this error?
   • Recovery Ease (復旧容易性): How easy is it for users to recover? (inverse: 5 = hard to recover)
   • Message Quality (メッセージ品質): How helpful is the current error message? (inverse: 5 = poor message)
   • Emotional Impact (感情的影響): How frustrated or anxious does the user feel?
   • Business Cost (ビジネスコスト): What is the business impact (support tickets, churn, revenue loss)?
3. Document rationale for each score
4. Use assets/cx_error_evaluation_template.md to record each evaluation

Workflow 3: CX Scoring（CXスコアリング）

Calculate weighted CX Scores and classify by severity tier.

1. Apply weights to each axis:

   Axis	Weight
   Impact Severity (影響度)	25%
   Frequency (頻度)	20%
   Recovery Ease (復旧容易性)	15%
   Message Quality (メッセージ品質)	15%
   Emotional Impact (感情的影響)	10%
   Business Cost (ビジネスコスト)	15%

2. Calculate weighted CX Score (1.0-5.0) for each scenario:

   CX Score = (Impact * 0.25) + (Frequency * 0.20) + (Recovery * 0.15)
            + (Message * 0.15) + (Emotional * 0.10) + (Business * 0.15)
   

   Higher score = worse customer experience.

3. Classify by CX Score tier:

   Score Range	Tier	Action
   4.0-5.0	Critical CX Issue	Immediate action required
   3.0-3.9	Significant CX Issue	Plan improvement
   2.0-2.9	Moderate CX Issue	Add to backlog
   1.0-1.9	Minor CX Issue	Nice to have

4. Rank all scenarios by CX Score descending

5. Refer to references/cx_metrics_reference.md for business impact estimation

Workflow 4: Improvement Priority Matrix（改善優先度マトリクス）

Plot errors on an Impact vs Effort matrix to determine improvement priorities.

1. Assess implementation effort for improving each error scenario:

   • Low Effort: Message text change, minor UI update (< 1 day)
   • Medium Effort: Recovery flow redesign, new validation logic (1-5 days)
   • High Effort: Architectural change, new error handling infrastructure (> 5 days)

2. Plot on 2x2 matrix (Impact = CX Score, Effort = Implementation Difficulty):

   High Impact ┌──────────────┬──────────────┐
               │  Strategic   │  Quick Wins  │
               │  Projects    │  (Do First)  │
               │              │              │
               ├──────────────┼──────────────┤
               │ Deprioritize │  Fill-Ins    │
               │  (Avoid)     │  (Batch)     │
   Low Impact  └──────────────┴──────────────┘
               High Effort     Low Effort
   

3. Identify Quick Wins (High Impact + Low Effort) for immediate action

4. Plan Strategic Projects (High Impact + High Effort) with proper roadmap

5. Suggest specific improvements for top priority items:

   • Load references/error_ux_best_practices.md for design patterns
   • Draft improved error messages (before/after)
   • Design improved recovery flows
   • Estimate improvement impact using references/cx_metrics_reference.md

Workflow 5: Report Generation（レポート出力）

Compile all analysis results into a comprehensive CX Error Analysis Report.

1. Load report template from assets/cx_error_report_template.md
2. Populate all sections:
   • Executive summary with key findings
   • Complete error scenario inventory
   • Multi-axis evaluation results for every scenario
   • CX Score ranking
   • Priority matrix visualization
   • Quick Wins list with specific action items
   • Detailed improvement proposals (top scenarios)
   • Expected benefits (support cost reduction, CSAT improvement, churn reduction)
3. Include quantitative estimates where possible:
   • Use references/cx_metrics_reference.md for ROI calculations
   • Estimate support ticket reduction
   • Project CSAT/CES improvement
4. Review and finalize the report

Resources

File	Purpose	When to Load
references/cx_evaluation_methodology.md	Detailed scoring criteria for all 6 evaluation axes, error classification taxonomy, and data collection guidance	Workflow 2 (Multi-Axis CX Evaluation)
references/error_ux_best_practices.md	Error message design principles, recovery flow patterns, emotional design, accessibility guidelines, and good/bad examples	Workflow 4 (Improvement Priority Matrix) when drafting improvements
references/cx_metrics_reference.md	CX metrics (CES, CSAT, NPS), support cost formulas, churn risk estimation, industry benchmarks, and ROI calculation	Workflow 3 (CX Scoring) and Workflow 5 (Report Generation)
assets/cx_error_report_template.md	Complete CX Error Analysis Report template with all sections and placeholders	Workflow 5 (Report Generation)
assets/cx_error_evaluation_template.md	Individual error scenario evaluation card template for per-scenario assessment	Workflow 2 (Multi-Axis CX Evaluation) for each scenario

---

Best Practices

Do's

• 実際のエラーメッセージテキストをそのまま記録する（推測しない）
• ユーザージャーニーの文脈でエラーを評価する（同じエラーでも決済時とブラウジング時で影響度が異なる）
• 改善提案には必ず「改善前→改善後」のメッセージ比較を含める
• ROI計算にサポートコスト削減とチャーンリスク低減の両方を含める
• Quick Winsを最優先で特定する（小さな改善でも即効性が高い）

Don'ts

• 技術的な正確性だけでエラーを評価しない（CX観点が主軸）
• 頻度データなしにスコアリングしない（推定でも頻度を見積もる）
• 感情的影響を過小評価しない（ユーザーの不安・焦りは離脱に直結する）
• 改善コストの見積もりを省略しない（Impact vs Effort マトリクスに必須）

---

Examples

例1: ECサイトのエラーCX分析

User: ECサイトのエラー体験を改善したい。主要なエラーシナリオを分析してください。

Claude:
1. [Workflow 1] エラー棚卸し → ERR-001(在庫切れ), ERR-002(決済失敗),
   ERR-003(セッションタイムアウト), ERR-004(住所バリデーション), ...
2. [Workflow 2] 6軸評価 → ERR-002(決済失敗)が最高スコア4.2: 影響度5, 復旧困難4, 感情5
3. [Workflow 3] CXスコア計算 → ERR-002: 4.2(Critical), ERR-003: 3.5(Significant), ...
4. [Workflow 4] 優先度マトリクス → Quick Win: ERR-004(メッセージ改善のみ、工数Low)
5. [Workflow 5] レポート出力: 改善提案8件、推定サポートコスト削減20%

例2: SaaSログイン周りのエラーUX改善

User: ログイン・認証エラーのUXを改善したい。

Claude:
1. [Workflow 1] 棚卸し → ERR-001(パスワード誤り), ERR-002(アカウントロック),
   ERR-003(2FA失敗), ERR-004(SSO連携エラー)
2. [Workflow 2] 各シナリオを評価 → ERR-002のメッセージ品質が5(最低: "Account locked"のみ)
3. [Workflow 4] Quick Win: ERR-002のメッセージ改善
   Before: "Account locked. Contact support."
   After: "セキュリティのためアカウントがロックされました。30分後に自動解除されます。
          すぐにログインが必要な場合はパスワードリセットをお試しください。"