ux-research-synthesis
Skill4 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when turning user interview transcripts, research notes, usability test notes, survey answers or support tickets into findings, themes, insights, an affinity map, personas, a journey map or "how might we" opportunities, or when summarising what users said.
In this repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- accessibility-auditSkill
- api-design-reviewSkill
- api-test-writerSkill
- architecture-diagramSkill
- bug-debuggerSkill
- bug-report-writerSkill
- changelog-writerSkill
- codebase-onboardingSkill
- code-reviewSkill
- database-schema-designSkill
- dependency-upgradeSkill
- design-handoff-specSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- dockerize-appSkill
- figma-design-compareSkill
- flaky-test-fixerSkill
- git-commit-writerSkill
- github-actions-ciSkill
- playwright-e2e-testsSkill
- prd-writerSkill
- proof-of-done-liteSkill
- readme-writerSkill
- refactor-plannerSkill
- security-auditSkill
- seo-auditSkill
- test-case-generatorSkill
- test-plan-writerSkill
- test-writerSkill
- ux-writingSkill
- web-performance-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 26
Optional artefacts,: only if asked and supported by the data: personas (built from behaviour patterns seen in at least two participants), a …
- Distinctive: line 66
Always show n of N. One participant is an anecdote: say "one participant", never "users".
- Distinctive: line 68
Keep personal data out: participant IDs only, no names, emails, employers or anything that identifies someone.
- Distinctive: line 69
Do not invent personas, numbers or segments that the data does not show.
- Distinctive: line 70
If the sample is too small or too narrow for a conclusion, say so instead of stretching.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
UX Research Synthesis
Overview
Turn raw research into findings a team can trust and act on. Every insight is traced to participants and quotes, shows how many people it came from, and separates what people did from what they said.
Inputs
- Transcripts, notes, recordings' text, survey exports or tickets. One file or section per participant is easiest.
- The research question or goal, if given. If missing, infer it from the questions asked and state it.
- Participant details (role, segment, plan) if available.
Method
- Inventory. List every source with a participant ID (P1, P2…) and segment. Replace names, emails, companies and other personal details with the ID.
- Extract observations. Go through each participant and pull atomic notes: one behaviour, pain, need, workaround or quote per note, tagged with the participant ID. Mark each as did (observed or described a real past event) or said (opinion, wish, prediction).
- Cluster. Group notes by similarity into themes (affinity mapping). Name each theme as a finding in a full sentence, not a topic word: "People export to Excel because the report cannot be filtered by date", not "Reporting".
- Count. For each theme, count distinct participants (n of N). Note which segments it comes from and any participant who said the opposite.
- Write insights. For the strongest themes: what happens, why it happens, and what it means for the product.
- Opportunities. Turn each insight into one or two "How might we…" questions. Do not jump to features.
- Optional artefacts, only if asked and supported by the data: personas (built from behaviour patterns seen in at least two participants), a journey map (stages, actions, thoughts, pains, opportunities).
- Confidence and gaps. Say what the data cannot answer, where the sample is thin, and any bias in how questions were asked.
Output
## Research synthesis: <study name>
**Research question:** <…>
**Participants:** N = <n> (<segments>) · **Sources:** <interviews, tests, survey…>
### Key findings
1. **<finding as a sentence>** — <n>/<N> participants (<segments>)
- Evidence: "<verbatim quote>" — P3; <observed behaviour> — P5
- Why: <underlying cause>
- Implication: <what this means for the product>
- Confidence: <high / medium / low> because <reason>
### Opportunities
- How might we <…>? (from finding 1)
### Contradictions and outliers
- <what didn't fit, and who>
### Gaps and next research
- <what we still don't know and how to find out>
### Appendix: themes
| Theme | Participants | Did / said | Example quote |
|---|---|---|---|Confidence:
- High: most participants, across segments, with observed behaviour.
- Medium: several participants, or mostly stated rather than observed.
- Low: one or two participants, or one segment only.
Rules
- Quotes are verbatim and attributed. Never invent, merge or "tidy up" a quote; shorten only with "…".
- Always show n of N. One participant is an anecdote: say "one participant", never "users".
- Weight what people did over what they said they would do. Feature requests are evidence of a need, not the solution.
- Keep personal data out: participant IDs only, no names, emails, employers or anything that identifies someone.
- Do not invent personas, numbers or segments that the data does not show.
- If the sample is too small or too narrow for a conclusion, say so instead of stretching.
Common mistakes
- Themes named with one word ("Onboarding") that say nothing about what was learned.
- Counting mentions instead of people: one talkative participant looks like a pattern.
- Turning every request into a feature recommendation.
- Hiding the participant who disagreed.
- Personas with invented hobbies, ages and stock-photo names.
Made by Wageesha Tripathi · LinkedIn · Email · More skills
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

