adversarial-ux-test

Files (1)

• SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# 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:

From supplefrog/agent-sync, MIT.

More from supplefrog/agent-sync