user-research

Plan, conduct, and synthesize user research. Trigger with "user research plan", "interview guide", "usability test", "survey design", "research questions", or when the user needs help with any aspect of understanding their users through research.

Quality

—

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Quality

Content

87%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A compact, well-organized reference for user research that is concise and actionable, with strong progressive disclosure for a small skill. The main gap is that the end-to-end research workflow is implied by section order rather than presented as an explicit sequenced process with checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add a short 'Workflow' section that explicitly sequences the study lifecycle (plan objectives → recruit → conduct → synthesize → deliver) so the plan-conduct-synthesize flow is unambiguous.

Insert a lightweight validation/synthesis checkpoint after the conduct phase (e.g., 'transcribe, tag quotes, then cluster into themes before drafting recommendations').

Tighten the Analysis Framework glosses to method names only where Claude already knows the concept (e.g., 'Jobs to be done'), keeping the body even leaner.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	Lean, table-and-list based content with no padded explanations; the one-line glosses in the Analysis Framework are minimal framing rather than verbosity.	3 / 3
Actionability	Gives concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: specific sample sizes and timelines, a timed 5-step interview template, and a named deliverables checklist — actionable for an instruction-only skill.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The interview guide is a clear sequenced 5-step process, but the overall study lifecycle (plan → conduct → synthesize) is not framed as an explicit ordered workflow and lacks checkpoints.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	Under 50 lines with no external references needed; content is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, satisfying the simple-skill allowance.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

100%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong, concise description that clearly states capabilities, supplies natural trigger terms, gives explicit when-to-use guidance, and occupies a distinct niche. Voice is third-person imperative, consistent with the good examples.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names three concrete actions — 'Plan, conduct, and synthesize' — tied to the user-research domain, matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly states what it does ('Plan, conduct, and synthesize user research') and when to use it via an explicit 'Trigger with' clause, satisfying both what and when.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Provides natural phrases users would say ('user research plan', 'interview guide', 'usability test', 'survey design', 'research questions') with good coverage of common variations.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The user-research niche with distinct triggers (interview guide, usability test, survey design) is unlikely to conflict with unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	12 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
Commit: f96c57c

Reviewed: 2 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.