adversarial-ux-test

Проверка удобства глазами недовольного пользователя

NousResearch/hermes-agentАвторский скилл
252 670звёзд54 650форковУ всего репозитория

Что получите

Один отчёт с отзывом персонажа, отфильтрованной оценкой, снимками проблем и ссылками на созданные задачи.

Что передать

Адрес приложения, основная задача пользователя и при желании описание персонажа.

Автопроверка файлов

Проверен состав файлов. Запуск не тестировался. Что проверено

Оценки пользователей

Загрузка оценок…
Ваш опыт
Обсудить →

Как использовать

Помогает продуктовым командам найти препятствия в интерфейсе, разыгрывая конкретного раздражённого пользователя с низкой технической уверенностью. Затем отделяет реальные проблемы удобства от личного неприятия технологий.

  1. Выберите одного персонажа из целевой аудитории: его цель, ограничения и причины отказаться от продукта.
  2. Поручите пройти основной сценарий в его роли, отмечая лишние действия, непонятные слова, ошибки и трудности чтения.
  3. Попросите оценить жалобы с позиции продукта, выделить приоритетные исправления и подготовить задачи.

Условия работы

  • Проверка проводится на тестовом стенде или развёрнутом приложении, а не в локальной среде разработки; нужен доступ через браузер.
  • Одна сессия посвящена одному персонажу. Если его описание не задано, агент может подобрать его по аудитории продукта.
  • Фильтрация жалоб обязательна: необработанные высказывания нельзя переносить в задачи. Для каждой жалобы нужен снимок экрана; за сессию создаётся не более десяти задач.

Пример запроса после установки

Проверь наш тестовый сервис записи на занятия глазами тренера, привыкшего к бумажному блокноту. Пройди запись результата тренировки и выдели реальные препятствия, отделив их от ворчания.

Пример составлен по инструкции автора; результат запуска не проверялся.

Основание: инструкция закреплённой версии

Для установки

Передайте промпт агенту, поддерживающему этот скилл. Подключения и инструменты для работы скилла настраиваются отдельно.

Совместимые агенты

Hermes Agent

Совместимость указана для инструкций. Запуск в каждом приложении не тестировался; для веб-чата способ подключения может отличаться.

Файлы скилла

GitHub
Читать инструкцию SKILL.md

Исходный текст закреплённой версии.

---
name: adversarial-ux-test
description: Roleplay a hostile user to find and triage UX pain points.
version: 1.0.0
author: Omni @ Comelse
license: MIT
platforms: [linux, macos, windows]
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [qa, ux, testing, adversarial, dogfood, personas, user-testing]
    related_skills: [dogfood]
---

# Adversarial UX Test

Roleplay the worst-case user for your product — the person who hates technology, doesn't want your software, and will find every reason to complain. Then filter their feedback through a pragmatism layer to separate real UX problems from "I hate computers" noise.

Think of it as an automated "mom test" — but angry.

## Why This Works

Most QA finds bugs. This finds **friction**. A technically correct app can still be unusable for real humans. The adversarial persona catches:
- Confusing terminology that makes sense to developers but not users
- Too many steps to accomplish basic tasks
- Missing onboarding or "aha moments"
- Accessibility issues (font size, contrast, click targets)
- Cold-start problems (empty states, no demo content)
- Paywall/signup friction that kills conversion

The **pragmatism filter** (Phase 3) is what makes this useful instead of just entertaining. Without it, you'd add a "print this page" button to every screen because Grandpa can't figure out PDFs.

## How to Use

Tell the agent:
```
"Run an adversarial UX test on [URL]"
"Be a grumpy [persona type] and test [app name]"
"Do an asshole user test on my staging site"
```

You can provide a persona or let the agent generate one based on your product's target audience.

## Step 1: Define the Persona

If no persona is provided, generate one by answering:

1. **Who is the HARDEST user for this product?** (age 50+, non-technical role, decades of experience doing it "the old way")
2. **What is their tech comfort level?** (the lower the better — WhatsApp-only, paper notebooks, wife set up their email)
3. **What is the ONE thing they need to accomplish?** (their core job, not your feature list)
4. **What would make them give up?** (too many clicks, jargon, slow, confusing)
5. **How do they talk when frustrated?** (blunt, sweary, dismissive, sighing)

### Good Persona Example
> **"Big Mick" McAllister** — 58-year-old S&C coach. Uses WhatsApp and that's it. His "spreadsheet" is a paper notebook. "If I can't figure it out in 10 seconds I'm going back to my notebook." Needs to log session results for 25 players. Hates small text, jargon, and passwords.

### Bad Persona Example
> "A user who doesn't like the app" — too vague, no constraints, no voice.

The persona must be **specific enough to stay in character** for 20 minutes of testing.

## Step 2: Become the Asshole (Browse as the Persona)

1. Read any available project docs for app context and URLs
2. **Fully inhabit the persona** — their frustrations, limitations, goals
3. Navigate to the app using browser tools
4. **Attempt the persona's ACTUAL TASKS** (not a feature tour):
   - Can they do what they came to do?
   - How many clicks/screens to accomplish it?
   - What confuses them?
   - What makes them angry?
   - Where do they get lost?
   - What would make them give up and go back to their old way?

5. Test these friction categories:
   - **First impression** — would they even bother past the landing page?
   - **Core workflow** — the ONE thing they need to do most often
   - **Error recovery** — what happens when they do something wrong?
   - **Readability** — text size, contrast, information density
   - **Speed** — does it feel faster than their current method?
   - **Terminology** — any jargon they wouldn't understand?
   - **Navigation** — can they find their way back? do they know where they are?

6. Take screenshots of every pain point
7. Check browser console for JS errors on every page

## Step 3: The Rant (Write Feedback in Character)

Write the feedback AS THE PERSONA — in their voice, with their frustrations. This is not a bug report. This is a real human venting.

```
[PERSONA NAME]'s Review of [PRODUCT]

Overall: [Would they keep using it? Yes/No/Maybe with conditions]

THE GOOD (grudging admission):
- [things even they have to admit work]

THE BAD (legitimate UX issues):
- [real problems that would stop them from using the product]

THE UGLY (showstoppers):
- [things that would make them uninstall/cancel immediately]

SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS:
1. [Page/feature]: "[quote in persona voice]" — [what happened, expected]
2. ...

VERDICT: "[one-line persona quote summarizing their experience]"
```

## Step 4: The Pragmatism Filter (Critical — Do Not Skip)

Step OUT of the persona. Evaluate each complaint as a product person:

- **RED: REAL UX BUG** — Any user would have this problem, not just grumpy ones. Fix it.
- **YELLOW: VALID BUT LOW PRIORITY** — Real issue but only for extreme users. Note it.
- **WHITE: PERSONA NOISE** — "I hate computers" talking, not a product problem. Skip it.
- **GREEN: FEATURE REQUEST** — Good idea hidden in the complaint. Consider it.

### Filter Criteria
1. Would a 35-year-old competent-but-busy user have the same complaint? → RED
2. Is this a genuine accessibility issue (font size, contrast, click targets)? → RED
3. Is this "I want it to work like paper" resistance to digital? → WHITE
4. Is this a real workflow inefficiency the persona stumbled on? → YELLOW or RED
5. Would fixing this add complexity for the 80% who are fine? → WHITE
6. Does the complaint reveal a missing onboarding moment? → GREEN

**This filter is MANDATORY.** Never ship raw persona complaints as tickets.

## Step 5: Create Tickets

For **RED** and **GREEN** items only:
- Clear, actionable title
- Include the persona's verbatim quote (entertaining + memorable)
- The real UX issue underneath (objective)
- A suggested fix (actionable)
- Tag/label: "ux-review"

For **YELLOW** items: one catch-all ticket with all notes.

**WHITE** items appear in the report only. No tickets.

**Max 10 tickets per session** — focus on the worst issues.

## Step 6: Report

Deliver:
1. The persona rant (Step 3) — entertaining and visceral
2. The filtered assessment (Step 4) — pragmatic and actionable
3. Tickets created (Step 5) — with links
4. Screenshots of key issues

## Tips

- **One persona per session.** Don't mix perspectives.
- **Stay in character during Steps 2-3.** Break character only at Step 4.
- **Test the CORE WORKFLOW first.** Don't get distracted by settings pages.
- **Empty states are gold.** New user experience reveals the most friction.
- **The best findings are RED items the persona found accidentally** while trying to do something else.
- **If the persona has zero complaints, your persona is too tech-savvy.** Make them older, less patient, more set in their ways.
- **Run this before demos, launches, or after shipping a batch of features.**
- **Register as a NEW user when possible.** Don't use pre-seeded admin accounts — the cold start experience is where most friction lives.
- **Zero WHITE items is a signal, not a failure.** If the pragmatism filter finds no noise, your product has real UX problems, not just a grumpy persona.
- **Check known issues in project docs AFTER the test.** If the persona found a bug that's already in the known issues list, that's actually the most damning finding — it means the team knew about it but never felt the user's pain.
- **Subscription/paywall testing is critical.** Test with expired accounts, not just active ones. The "what happens when you can't pay" experience reveals whether the product respects users or holds their data hostage.
- **Count the clicks to accomplish the persona's ONE task.** If it's more than 5, that's almost always a RED finding regardless of persona tech level.

## Example Personas by Industry

These are starting points — customize for your specific product:

| Product Type | Persona | Age | Key Trait |
|-------------|---------|-----|-----------|
| CRM | Retirement home director | 68 | Filing cabinet is the current CRM |
| Photography SaaS | Rural wedding photographer | 62 | Books clients by phone, invoices on paper |
| AI/ML Tool | Department store buyer | 55 | Burned by 3 failed tech startups |
| Fitness App | Old-school gym coach | 58 | Paper notebook, thick fingers, bad eyes |
| Accounting | Family bakery owner | 64 | Shoebox of receipts, hates subscriptions |
| E-commerce | Market stall vendor | 60 | Cash only, smartphone is for calls |
| Healthcare | Senior GP | 63 | Dictates notes, nurse handles the computer |
| Education | Veteran teacher | 57 | Chalk and talk, worksheets in ring binders |

## Rules

- Stay in character during Steps 2-3
- Be genuinely mean but fair — find real problems, not manufactured ones
- The pragmatism filter (Step 4) is **MANDATORY**
- Screenshots required for every complaint
- Max 10 tickets per session
- Test on staging/deployed app, not local dev
- One persona, one session, one report

Проверка и особенности

Автоматическая проверка источника и файлов

Автоматически проверены публичный репозиторий, лицензия, заголовок SKILL.md, состав текстового пакета и Git-хеш каждого файла. Пакеты с исполняемым кодом и срабатываниями применённых статических правил не включены. Ручной аудит всех инструкций и функциональный запуск не проводились. Внешние инструменты и сервисы не проверялись. Проверка не гарантирует безопасность.

У репозитория было 249,461 звёзд GitHub при проверке 2026-09-27. Порог добавления — строго больше 100 000. Звёзды относятся ко всему репозиторию, а не к качеству или установкам скилла.

Проверка состава
27.09.2026
Проверенная версия
8f897d2d23a3
Файлы с кодом
Не указаны в данных проверки
Изменения на GitHub
Нужна повторная проверкаПоследняя проверка: 11.10.2026
Как мы проверяем скиллы

Репозиторий и лицензия

NousResearch/hermes-agent
252 670 звёзд54 650 форков

Это показатели всего репозитория, а не установки скилла. Снимок требует обновления.

Последняя активность GitHub
11.10.2026
Лицензия
MIT
Добавлен в каталог
27.09.2026
Полный текст лицензии
MIT License

Copyright (c) 2025 Nous Research

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.

Ещё в этой категории

Все в категории

Обсуждение

Правила

Пользовались этим скиллом? Делитесь опытом без регистрации. Все комментарии проверяет модератор.

Мои комментарии