Ux Research PlanCAUTION

1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-

The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.

---
name: ux-research-plan
description: "Create a structured UX research plan for any product question or feature. Use when asked to write a research plan, design a user study, create a discussion guide, write screener questions, or plan usability testing. Produces a full research plan with objectives, methodology, screener, discussion guide, and synthesis framework."
---

# UX Research Plan Skill

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.

## Required Inputs

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).
- **Research question** (what decision will this research inform?)
- **Product area or feature** being researched
- **Research type** (Generative / Evaluative / Usability testing / Diary study / Survey)
- **Stage** (Discovery / Concept validation / Prototype testing / Live product)
- **Target participants** (role, demographics, behaviour — who should we talk to?)
- **Timeline and number of sessions**
- **Existing assumptions or hypotheses** (optional but valuable)

## Output Structure

---

# UX Research Plan: [Study Title]
**Product area:** [Area]
**Research type:** [Type]
**Date:** [Timeline]
**Researcher:** [Leave for user]

---

## 1. Research Objectives

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].

---

## 2. Research Questions

[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:**
- RQ1.1: [Research question]
- RQ1.2: [Research question]

---

## 3. Methodology & Rationale

**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:**
- **Will tell us:** [What this method is good at revealing]
- **Won't tell us:** [What's out of scope — be honest about limits]

**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"]

---

## 4. Participant Screener

**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]
- [Answer options — flag which qualify/disqualify]

[Q2] ...

**Incentive recommendation:** [Amount and format — e.g. "£50 gift voucher for a 60-min session is standard in the UK for professional participants"]

---

## 5. Discussion Guide

Structure the session:

### Opening (5 min)
- Introduce yourself and the study
- "We're testing the design, not you — there are no wrong answers"
- Permission to record
- Warm-up: [1–2 easy questions to build rapport — e.g. "Tell me about your role and what a typical week looks like"]

### Core Questions (by section)

**Section [A]: [Topic]** *(~X min)*

1. [Open question — start broad] *[Probe: Tell me more about...]*
2. [Follow-up to go deeper] *[Probe: Can you walk me through what happened?]*
3. [Specific scenario or past behaviour question]

**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."

- Task [N]: [Clear task instruction — write from the user's perspective, not "click on X" but "find where you would go to do Y"]
  - **Success criteria:** [What "completing this task" looks like]
  - **What to observe:** [Where friction typically appears]

### Closing (5 min)
- "Is there anything about [topic] we haven't covered that you think is important?"
- "If you could change one thing about [product/concept], what would it be?"
- Debrief and thank

---

## 6. Synthesis Framework

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:**
- Key findings (3–5 headlines)
- Supporting evidence per finding
- Design recommendations
- Open questions for next research cycle

---

## Quality Checks

- [ ] Research objectives map to real decisions
- [ ] Discussion guide opens broad before going specific
- [ ] Screener criteria are specific enough to get the right participants
- [ ] Tasks (if usability) are written from the user's perspective
- [ ] Synthesis framework is included
- [ ] Incentive recommendation is included

## Anti-Patterns

- [ ] Do not write a research plan without clearly stated research objectives — every methodology choice must flow from the objectives
- [ ] Do not design a plan that mixes generative and evaluative research without cl

CAUTIONgrade B · trust 89/100 Install with care. The audit found things worth knowing before you trust its output.

What the source does

Filesystem

none-observed

Network

none-observed

Shell

none-observed

Dependencies

pinned

Secrets in source

none-found

Findings (5)

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/discovery-interview-guide/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/job-story-mapper/SKILL.md

templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/user-interview-synthesis/SKILL.md

templates/pm-launch-agent/skills/content-calendar/SKILL.md

Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.