This skill should be used when the user asks to "check accessibility", "audit WCAG compliance", "scan HTML for a11y issues", "check color contrast", or "find accessibility violations in web pages".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
UX research and design toolkit covering persona generation, journey mapping, usability testing, and research synthesis. Use for user research, persona creation, journey mapping, or design validation.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Generate user personas from research data, create journey maps, plan usability tests, and synthesize research findings into actionable design recommendations.
Use this skill when you need to:
Before generating the research artifact, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:
Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.
Situation: You have user data (analytics, surveys, interviews) and need to create a research-backed persona.
Steps:
Prepare user data
Required format (JSON):
[
{
"user_id": "user_1",
"age": 32,
"usage_frequency": "daily",
"features_used": ["dashboard", "reports", "export"],
"primary_device": "desktop",
"usage_context": "work",
"tech_proficiency": 7,
"pain_points": ["slow loading", "confusing UI"]
}
]
Run persona generator
# Human-readable output
python scripts/persona_generator.py
# JSON output for integration
python scripts/persona_generator.py json
Review generated components
| Component | What to Check |
|---|---|
| Archetype | Does it match the data patterns? |
| Demographics | Are they derived from actual data? |
| Goals | Are they specific and actionable? |
| Frustrations | Do they include frequency counts? |
| Design implications | Can designers act on these? |
Validate persona
Reference: See references/persona-methodology.md for validity criteria
When you lack research data but need a hypothesis-driven persona to align the team, use a proto-persona canvas. Proto-personas are assumption tools -- not validated truth -- meant to be tested and refined.
Use when: Starting a new initiative with no research budget, aligning a cross-functional team quickly, or creating a testable hypothesis about your user.
Proto-Persona Canvas Template:
### [Alliterative Name] (e.g., "Careful Carlos")
**Bio & Demographics:**
- Age, geography, social status, career stage
- Online presence, leisure activities, partner status
**Quotes** (what they say, feel, think):
- "[Direct quote capturing their perspective]"
- "[Quote revealing frustration or aspiration]"
**Pains:**
- [Pain related to the problem space]
- [Pain related to current workarounds]
**What They're Trying to Accomplish:**
- [Observable behavior 1]
- [Observable behavior 2]
**Goals** (wants, needs, dreams):
- [Short-term goal]
- [Long-term aspiration]
**Attitudes & Influences:**
- Decision Making Authority: [Can they buy/adopt your solution?]
- Decision Influencers: [Who influences their decisions?]
- Beliefs & Attitudes: [What beliefs impact their choices?]
**Assumptions to Validate:**
- [Top assumption that must be true for this persona to be viable]
- [Second assumption]
- [Third assumption]
Next steps after proto-persona:
Situation: You need to visualize the end-to-end user experience for a specific goal.
Steps:
Define scope
| Element | Description |
|---|---|
| Persona | Which user type |
| Goal | What they're trying to achieve |
| Start | Trigger that begins journey |
| End | Success criteria |
| Timeframe | Hours/days/weeks |
Gather journey data
Sources:
Map the stages
Typical B2B SaaS stages:
Awareness → Evaluation → Onboarding → Adoption → Advocacy
Fill in layers for each stage
Stage: [Name]
├── Actions: What does user do?
├── Touchpoints: Where do they interact?
├── Emotions: How do they feel? (1-5)
├── Pain Points: What frustrates them?
└── Opportunities: Where can we improve?
Map three experience paths (not just the happy path)
| Stage | Happy Path | Fail Path | Difficult Path |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Finds product via search | Never discovers product | Finds competitor first |
| Consideration | Clear value proposition | Confused by pricing | Needs manager approval |
| Decision | Easy signup flow | Form errors, abandons | Legal review delays |
| Delivery & Use | Smooth onboarding | Can't import data | Workaround needed |
| Loyalty | Becomes advocate | Churns silently | Stays but complains |
Add KPIs and ownership per stage
| Stage | Leading KPI | Lagging KPI | Team Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Awareness | Site visits, ad impressions | Brand recall | Marketing |
| Consideration | Demo requests, pricing page views | MQL conversion | Marketing/Sales |
| Decision | Trial starts, contract sent | Close rate | Sales |
| Use | Feature adoption, DAU | Retention rate | Product |
| Loyalty | NPS, referral count | LTV, expansion revenue | Customer Success |
Identify top friction points and interventions
For each friction point, document:
| Friction Point | Why It Matters | Intervention | Expected Impact | Effort | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Description] | [User/business impact] | [Proposed fix] | High/Med/Low | S/M/L | High/Med/Low |
Priority Score = Frequency x Severity x Solvability
Reference: See references/journey-mapping-guide.md for templates
Situation: You need to validate a design with real users.
Steps:
Define research questions
Transform vague goals into testable questions:
| Vague | Testable |
|---|---|
| "Is it easy to use?" | "Can users complete checkout in <3 min?" |
| "Do users like it?" | "Will users choose Design A or B?" |
| "Does it make sense?" | "Can users find settings without hints?" |
Select method
| Method | Participants | Duration | Best For |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moderated remote | 5-8 | 45-60 min | Deep insights |
| Unmoderated remote | 10-20 | 15-20 min | Quick validation |
| Guerrilla | 3-5 | 5-10 min | Rapid feedback |
Design tasks
Good task format:
SCENARIO: "Imagine you're planning a trip to Paris..."
GOAL: "Book a hotel for 3 nights in your budget."
SUCCESS: "You see the confirmation page."
Task progression: Warm-up → Core → Secondary → Edge case → Free exploration
Define success metrics
| Metric | Target |
|---|---|
| Completion rate | >80% |
| Time on task | <2× expected |
| Error rate | <15% |
| Satisfaction | >4/5 |
Prepare moderator guide
Reference: See references/usability-testing-frameworks.md for full guide
Situation: You have raw research data (interviews, surveys, observations) and need actionable insights.
Steps:
Code the data
Tag each data point:
[GOAL] - What they want to achieve[PAIN] - What frustrates them[BEHAVIOR] - What they actually do[CONTEXT] - When/where they use product[QUOTE] - Direct user wordsCluster similar patterns
User A: Uses daily, advanced features, shortcuts
User B: Uses daily, complex workflows, automation
User C: Uses weekly, basic needs, occasional
Cluster 1: A, B (Power Users)
Cluster 2: C (Casual User)
Calculate segment sizes
| Cluster | Users | % | Viability |
|---|---|---|---|
| Power Users | 18 | 36% | Primary persona |
| Business Users | 15 | 30% | Primary persona |
| Casual Users | 12 | 24% | Secondary persona |
Extract key findings
For each theme:
Prioritize opportunities
| Factor | Score 1-5 |
|---|---|
| Frequency | How often does this occur? |
| Severity | How much does it hurt? |
| Breadth | How many users affected? |
| Solvability | Can we fix this? |
Reference: See references/persona-methodology.md for analysis framework
Generates data-driven personas from user research data.
| Argument | Values | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | (none), json | (none) | Output format |
Sample Output:
============================================================
PERSONA: Alex the Power User
============================================================
📝 A daily user who primarily uses the product for work purposes
Archetype: Power User
Quote: "I need tools that can keep up with my workflow"
👤 Demographics:
• Age Range: 25-34
• Location Type: Urban
• Tech Proficiency: Advanced
🎯 Goals & Needs:
• Complete tasks efficiently
• Automate workflows
• Access advanced features
😤 Frustrations:
• Slow loading times (14/20 users)
• No keyboard shortcuts
• Limited API access
💡 Design Implications:
→ Optimize for speed and efficiency
→ Provide keyboard shortcuts and power features
→ Expose API and automation capabilities
📈 Data: Based on 45 users
Confidence: High
Archetypes Generated:
| Archetype | Signals | Design Focus |
|---|---|---|
| power_user | Daily use, 10+ features | Efficiency, customization |
| casual_user | Weekly use, 3-5 features | Simplicity, guidance |
| business_user | Work context, team use | Collaboration, reporting |
| mobile_first | Mobile primary | Touch, offline, speed |
Output Components:
| Component | Description |
|---|---|
| demographics | Age range, location, occupation, tech level |
| psychographics | Motivations, values, attitudes, lifestyle |
| behaviors | Usage patterns, feature preferences |
| needs_and_goals | Primary, secondary, functional, emotional |
| frustrations | Pain points with evidence |
| scenarios | Contextual usage stories |
| design_implications | Actionable recommendations |
| data_points | Sample size, confidence level |
| Question Type | Best Method | Sample Size |
|---|---|---|
| "What do users do?" | Analytics, observation | 100+ events |
| "Why do they do it?" | Interviews | 8-15 users |
| "How well can they do it?" | Usability test | 5-8 users |
| "What do they prefer?" | Survey, A/B test | 50+ users |
| "What do they feel?" | Diary study, interviews | 10-15 users |
| Sample Size | Confidence | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| 5-10 users | Low | Exploratory |
| 11-30 users | Medium | Directional |
| 31+ users | High | Production |
| Severity | Definition | Action |
|---|---|---|
| 4 - Critical | Prevents task completion | Fix immediately |
| 3 - Major | Significant difficulty | Fix before release |
| 2 - Minor | Causes hesitation | Fix when possible |
| 1 - Cosmetic | Noticed but not problematic | Low priority |
| Type | Example | Use For |
|---|---|---|
| Context | "Walk me through your typical day" | Understanding environment |
| Behavior | "Show me how you do X" | Observing actual actions |
| Goals | "What are you trying to achieve?" | Uncovering motivations |
| Pain | "What's the hardest part?" | Identifying frustrations |
| Reflection | "What would you change?" | Generating ideas |
Detailed reference guides in references/:
| File | Content |
|---|---|
persona-methodology.md | Validity criteria, data collection, analysis framework |
journey-mapping-guide.md | Mapping process, templates, opportunity identification |
example-personas.md | 3 complete persona examples with data |
usability-testing-frameworks.md | Test planning, task design, analysis |
Generates data-driven personas from user research data, classifying users into archetypes with demographics, psychographics, behaviors, goals, frustrations, and design implications.
| Argument | Type | Default | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
format | positional | (none) | Add json for JSON output; omit for human-readable |
Archetypes supported: power_user, casual_user, business_user, mobile_first
Output components: name, archetype, tagline, quote, demographics, psychographics, behaviors, needs_and_goals, frustrations, scenarios, data_points, design_implications
python scripts/persona_generator.py # Human-readable formatted output
python scripts/persona_generator.py json # JSON for programmatic use
Data input format (customize in script):
[{
"user_id": "user_1",
"age": 32,
"usage_frequency": "daily",
"features_used": ["dashboard", "reports", "export"],
"primary_device": "desktop",
"usage_context": "work",
"tech_proficiency": 7,
"pain_points": ["slow loading", "confusing UI"]
}]
| Problem | Cause | Solution |
|---|---|---|
| Persona confidence level is "Low" | Fewer than 20 users in sample data | Collect more data points; combine quantitative analytics with qualitative interviews |
| All users classified as same archetype | Insufficient variation in input data | Ensure data includes diverse usage frequencies, devices, and contexts |
| Frustrations are generic (fallback defaults) | Not enough pain_points in user data | Enrich user data with pain_points from interviews and support tickets |
| Design implications too vague | Patterns don't strongly differentiate | Add more behavioral signals (features_used, session duration, task completion) |
| Journey map has flat emotion curve | All stages scored similarly | Re-evaluate with actual user data; conduct contextual interviews per stage |
| Usability test sample too small | Fewer than 5 participants | 5 participants find ~85% of usability issues; recruit to minimum 5 |
| Research synthesis has no clear patterns | Data not coded consistently | Use consistent tagging scheme (GOAL, PAIN, BEHAVIOR, CONTEXT, QUOTE) |
| Criterion | Target | How to Measure |
|---|---|---|
| Persona validity | Validated by 3+ real users ("sounds like me") | Post-creation validation interviews |
| Persona coverage | All key segments represented | Count of personas vs identified user segments |
| Data confidence level | "High" (31+ users) | persona_generator data_points.confidence_level |
| Research cadence | 5-8 interviews per segment per quarter | Count of completed research sessions |
| Insight-to-action rate | >70% of findings result in design changes | Track findings through to implementation |
| Usability issue resolution | All critical/major issues fixed before release | Issue severity tracking |
| Journey map freshness | Updated at least quarterly | Last-updated date on each journey map |
In scope:
Out of scope:
| Tool / Platform | Integration Method | Use Case |
|---|---|---|
| Dovetail / Condens | Export research data, import persona JSON | Centralize research insights |
| Figma / Miro | Paste persona output as design artifact | Reference personas during design work |
| Notion / Confluence | Human-readable output | Document and share personas with team |
| product-manager-toolkit | Persona pain points inform RICE scoring | Connect user needs to feature prioritization |
| agile-product-owner | Persona data informs user story personas | Write stories grounded in research |
| product-designer | Persona feeds into journey mapping and usability test recruitment | End-to-end design research workflow |
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
This skill should be used when the user asks to "check accessibility", "audit WCAG compliance", "scan HTML for a11y issues", "check color contrast", or "find accessibility violations in web pages".
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design and analyze A/B tests: sample size, test duration, and statistical significance for conversion experiments. Use when setting up an A/B test, calculating sample size, designing an experiment, or analyzing results.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design and run statistically rigorous A/B tests and experiments. Use when planning experiments, calculating sample sizes, designing test variants, selecting metrics, analyzing results, or when someone says "let's test that."
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Sales execution across pipeline, discovery, demos, negotiation, and closing. Use when qualifying opportunities, running MEDDIC discovery, building account plans, handling objections, structuring proposals, or forecasting pipeline.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Design ad creative across Google, Meta, LinkedIn, Twitter/X, and TikTok with platform format specs, headline formulas, and A/B testing. Use when writing ad copy, generating headline variations, creating ad sets, or validating creative.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO): optimize content to be cited by LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity, Gemini) in their answers. Use when designing content for LLM citation, auditing citability, or structuring Q&A schema.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。