ux-research-plan-9dbbf3 — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited ux-research-plan-9dbbf3 (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
This skill creates a complete, ready-to-execute UX research plan. Output covers everything from research objectives to screener questions, discussion guide, and synthesis framework.
Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).
Product area: [Area] Research type: [Type] Date: [Timeline] Researcher: [Leave for user]
State 2–4 clear research objectives. Each objective should map to a decision that will be made differently depending on what you find.
Objective [N]: Understand [specific thing] so we can [decision this informs].
[5–8 questions — the actual questions you want research to answer. These are not the interview questions; they're the knowledge gaps. Organised under each objective.]
Objective 1:
Method chosen: [e.g. Semi-structured interviews / Usability testing / Concept testing]
Why this method: [2–3 sentences. Match method to research type. If evaluative: usability testing. If generative: contextual inquiry or interviews. If testing comprehension: 5-second test or concept test.]
What this method will and won't tell us:
Sample size: [Recommended number of sessions and why — e.g. "5–6 moderated interviews for generative research; 5–8 usability sessions to identify top issues"]
Recruitment criteria:
| Criterion | Must Have / Nice to Have | Disqualify if |
|---|---|---|
| [e.g. Uses project management software daily] | Must Have | [Never uses any PM tool] |
| [e.g. Works in a team of 5+] | Must Have | — |
| [e.g. B2B industry] | Nice to Have | — |
Screener questions (5–8 questions):
[Q1] [Screening question — clear, not leading]
[Q2] ...
Incentive recommendation: [Amount and format — e.g. "£50 gift voucher for a 60-min session is standard in the UK for professional participants"]
Structure the session:
Section [A]: [Topic] (~X min)
Section [B]: [Topic] (~X min) [Continue with 2–3 questions per section]
Usability tasks (if applicable):
"I'm going to ask you to try a few things with this prototype. Please think aloud as you go."
After sessions, use this framework to synthesise findings:
Step 1: Session notes → Key observations For each session: 3–5 specific observations (behaviours, quotes, reactions — not interpretations yet)
Step 2: Affinity mapping Group observations by theme across all sessions. Aim for 4–7 clusters.
Step 3: Insight statements For each cluster: "When [context], users [behaviour/experience], because [underlying need or mental model]."
Step 4: Implications For each insight: "This means we should [design/product implication]" or "This challenges our assumption that [assumption]."
Step 5: Research report structure:
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.