Conducts a heuristic UX evaluation using Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, identifies violations with severity ratings, and produces a prioritized remediation list.
SkillScore70Maintained
Automatic
◆Design & UX Review pack
Last verified 9/20/2026
What it changes
Passed 16 of 23 test cases with the skill, and 10 of 23 without it.
Without skill43%
With skill70%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
The response calculates Violation B priority score as 1.0.
The response calculates Violation A priority score as 6.75.
The response evaluates all 10 usability heuristics adapted to text or CLI interfaces.
and 5 more in the full report
7 fixed9 passed either way6 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+26 pp
Tokens
+387%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-3%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 9/20/2026v116 of 23 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 7 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 7
Prompt
We have two usability violations: Violation A is Severity 3, affects 80% of users on a core checkout task. Violation B is Severity 4, affects 10% of users on a rare account deletion task. Calculate their exact composite priority scores.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
The response calculates Violation A priority score as 6.75.
Missed
Passed
The response calculates Violation B priority score as 1.0.
Missed
Passed
case-15 · gemini-3.6-flash · 9/20/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md522 linessingle file
UX Audit
When to Use
Use this skill when:
The user asks to audit, evaluate, or review the usability of an existing interface -- a web application, mobile app, dashboard, checkout flow, onboarding sequence, settings screen, or any interactive product surface
The user wants a structured heuristic evaluation grounded in Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, producing severity-rated findings and a prioritized remediation plan
The user needs to identify why users are struggling with a product -- support tickets mention confusion, drop-off analytics show abandonment at a specific step, or user testing revealed friction but not root causes
The user wants to compare a redesign against an existing interface to evaluate whether usability has improved, regressed, or stayed the same
The user wants to benchmark a product's usability quality before commissioning user research or a formal redesign, establishing a baseline of known issues
The user wants a quick expert evaluation (heuristic evaluation is 75% as effective as full usability testing at finding serious problems, per Nielsen Norman Group research) before investing in full usability studies
The user is a product manager, designer, or developer who needs a structured list of UX debt to feed into sprint planning or backlog grooming
Do NOT use when:
The user needs an accessibility audit measured against WCAG 2.1 or 2.2 success criteria -- color contrast ratios, ARIA landmark roles, focus order, keyboard navigation compliance (use accessibility-review)
The user wants a visual design critique focused on typography hierarchy, color palette harmony, grid alignment, or brand consistency (use visual-hierarchy-review)
The user wants to map the end-to-end user journey, identify where flows diverge, detect dead ends, or audit navigation architecture (use user-flow-mapping)
The user wants to design a new interface from scratch and needs wireframe specs or layout guidance (use wireframe-specification)
The user wants to analyze quantitative data -- funnel drop-off rates, heatmaps, session recordings, or A/B test results without an interface to evaluate (use analytics-interpretation)
The user wants to conduct usability testing with real participants -- recruiting, scripting, moderating (use usability-test-planning)
The request is purely about content strategy, microcopy tone, or brand voice rather than interface usability (use content-strategy)
Process
Step 1: Gather Context Before Beginning
Never begin an audit without sufficient context. A heuristic evaluation without user context produces findings that are technically correct but strategically useless.
Identify the product surface: Ask for the specific screen, flow, or product being audited. Accept URLs, annotated screenshots, written descriptions of the interface, or a combination. If the user provides a URL, describe what you observe before evaluating -- don't assume.
Establish the target user profile: Who are the primary users? Novice vs. expert distinction is critical -- a violation of H7 (flexibility and efficiency) matters far more for a tool used by power users 40 hours a week than for a consumer app used once a month. Ask about technical literacy, domain expertise, and usage frequency.
Define the critical task set: Identify 3-5 core tasks users must accomplish. These become your severity multipliers -- a violation that blocks a core task scores higher than an identical violation in a rarely used secondary feature.
Collect known signals: Ask about existing evidence: support tickets, NPS comments, user research findings, drop-off rates at specific steps, or help documentation requests. These validate and prioritize findings rather than drive them.
Agree on audit scope: Clarify whether this is a full product audit, a focused flow audit (e.g., only the checkout), a single-screen deep dive, or a comparison audit (current vs. proposed). Different scopes require different output depth. A full product audit should not attempt to evaluate 50 screens in equal depth -- identify the 5-10 highest-traffic or highest-stakes screens.
Evaluate every heuristic in sequence. Do not skip heuristics that seem obviously fine -- passing heuristics should be marked as Pass with a brief rationale. Experienced evaluators find more violations when they work through each heuristic in isolation rather than doing a general walkthrough.