Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →asgard-ai-platform/ux-heuristic
Conduct heuristic evaluation of user interfaces using Nielsen's 10 usability principles.
Passed 20 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 14 of 23 without it.
and 8 more in the full report
7 fixed13 passed either way2 still failing1 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
We evaluated an online learning portal dashboard and found 5 usability issues: 2 catastrophic, 1 major, 1 minor, and 1 cosmetic. Please generate the markdown summary section for this report. Many teams like to use tables or bold text without parenthetical labels, but we want to stick strictly to standard UX reporting conventions for severity summaries.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Uses exact bullet text format - Total violations found: 5 | Missed | Passed |
| Includes parenthetical descriptors for every severity tier in the summary bullets | Passed | Passed |
| Lists total violations before breakdown by severity level | Passed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Heuristic evaluation is an expert review method that assesses a user interface against established usability principles. It's fast (2-4 hours), cheap (no user recruitment), and finds 40-60% of usability issues. Use it as a complement to, not replacement for, user testing.
IRON LAW: Every Violation Gets a Severity Rating
Finding a violation is half the work. Rating its severity is the other half.
A cosmetic inconsistency and a critical workflow blocker are both "violations"
but require completely different response urgency.
0 = Not a usability problem
1 = Cosmetic only — fix if time permits
2 = Minor — low priority
3 = Major — important to fix, high priority
4 = Catastrophe — must fix before release
| # | Heuristic | Question to Ask |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Does the user always know what's happening? (loading indicators, progress bars, confirmations) |
| 2 | Match between system and real world | Does it use the user's language, not system jargon? Are conventions familiar? |
| 3 | User control and freedom | Can users undo, redo, go back, cancel? Is there an emergency exit? |
| 4 | Consistency and standards | Are the same actions/words used consistently? Does it follow platform conventions? |
| 5 | Error prevention | Does the design prevent errors before they happen? (confirmations, constraints, defaults) |
| 6 | Recognition rather than recall | Are options visible? Can users recognize rather than remember? |
| 7 | Flexibility and efficiency of use | Are there shortcuts for experts? Can users customize frequent actions? |
| 8 | Aesthetic and minimalist design | Is every element necessary? Does extra information compete with relevant info? |
| 9 | Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors | Are error messages helpful? Do they explain what went wrong and how to fix it? |
| 10 | Help and documentation | Is help available? Is it searchable, task-oriented, and concise? |
test cases passed, vs 14 / 23 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.