User-Experience Skill

Version: 1.0.0
Framework: Jerry User-Experience
Constitutional Compliance: Jerry Constitution v1.0
SSOT References: GitHub Issue #138 (Architecture Spec), PROJ-022 PLAN.md, ADR-PROJ007-001 (Agent Definition Format)
Project: PROJ-022 User Experience Skill | GitHub Issue #138

Document Sections

Section	Purpose
Document Audience	Triple-Lens audience guide
Purpose	Skill overview and key capabilities
When to Use This Skill	Activation triggers and scope boundaries
Available Agents	11-agent roster with roles, models, and output locations
P-003 Compliance	Orchestrator-worker hierarchy diagram
Invoking an Agent	Three invocation methods with examples
Wave Architecture	5-wave criteria-gated deployment model
Lifecycle-Stage Routing	Orchestrator triage by product stage
Synthesis Hypothesis Validation	3-tier confidence gate protocol
MCP Integration Architecture	Dependency matrix, cost tiers, fallback paths
Cross-Skill Integration	Integration with eng-team, red-team, adversary, orchestration, and others
Constitutional Compliance	Governing principles
Quick Reference	Common workflows and agent selection hints
References	Full repo-relative paths to all referenced files

Document Audience (Triple-Lens)

This SKILL.md serves multiple audiences:

Level	Audience	Sections to Focus On
L0 (Stakeholder)	New users, product managers	Purpose, When to Use This Skill, Quick Reference
L1 (Developer)	Engineers invoking agents	Invoking an Agent, Available Agents, Lifecycle-Stage Routing
L2 (Architect)	Workflow designers, skill maintainers	Wave Architecture, MCP Integration Architecture, Synthesis Hypothesis Validation

---

Purpose

The User-Experience skill provides AI-augmented UX methodology for tiny teams (1-5 people) through 11 agents (1 orchestrator + 10 framework specialists). Each agent encapsulates a proven UX framework, produces persistent artifacts that survive context compaction, enforces methodological rigor via synthesis hypothesis confidence gates, and builds a cumulative product UX knowledge base.

The skill targets teams where UX is a part-time responsibility -- calibrated for 20-50% of one person's time in Waves 1-2, with Waves 3-5 as aspirational progression.

Key Capabilities

• Heuristic Evaluation -- Nielsen's 10 Heuristics with severity-rated findings (Wave 1)
• Jobs-to-Be-Done Analysis -- User motivation research, switch interviews, job mapping (Wave 1)
• Lean UX Facilitation -- Hypothesis-driven build-measure-learn cycles (Wave 2)
• HEART Metrics -- Google's Goals-Signals-Metrics (GSM) framework for UX measurement (Wave 2)
• Atomic Design -- Brad Frost's 5-level component taxonomy (Wave 3)
• Inclusive Design Evaluation -- WCAG 2.2 compliance and Microsoft Inclusive Design (Wave 3)
• Behavior Diagnosis -- Fogg B=MAP bottleneck analysis (Wave 4)
• Kano Feature Prioritization -- Must-be / Performance / Attractive classification (Wave 4)
• Design Sprint Facilitation -- AJ&Smart Design Sprint 2.0 four-day process (Wave 5)
• AI-First Interaction Design -- AI interface patterns and trust calibration (Wave 5, CONDITIONAL)

Deployment Status (v1.0.0): The skill architecture is fully specified but sub-skills deploy incrementally through the wave model. Currently deployed: ux-orchestrator (Wave 0 Foundation). Wave 1-5 sub-skill agents are not yet deployed — invoking the skill before their wave completes will route to only the currently-available sub-skills. The orchestrator discloses deployment state to users per P-022 and offers the wave bypass mechanism for urgent needs. See Wave Architecture for the full deployment timeline.

---

When to Use This Skill

Activate when:

• Evaluating an existing interface against usability heuristics
• Conducting user research to understand motivations (JTBD, switch interviews)
• Designing or validating a Lean UX hypothesis and experiment cycle
• Defining or measuring UX metrics using the HEART framework
• Building or auditing a component library using atomic design principles
• Auditing for accessibility compliance (WCAG 2.2, inclusive design)
• Diagnosing why users fail to take a desired action (Fogg B=MAP)
• Prioritizing features by user satisfaction impact (Kano analysis)
• Running a structured design sprint for rapid prototyping
• Designing AI-powered interfaces or conversational interactions
• Performing a comprehensive multi-framework UX audit (orchestrator routes to 2+ agents)
• Urgent UX triage via crisis mode (3-skill emergency sequence)

Do NOT use for:

• Security-focused code review or threat modeling (use /eng-team)
• Systems engineering requirements or V&V (use /nasa-se)
• General research without UX focus (use /problem-solving)
• Adversarial quality review of deliverables (use /adversary)
• Offensive security testing (use /red-team)
• Architecture design without user-facing concerns (use /architecture)
• Documentation writing (use /diataxis)

---

Available Agents

Agent	Role	Tier	Mode	Model	Wave	Output Location
ux-orchestrator	Parent orchestrator: routing, wave gating, cross-framework synthesis	T5	Integrative	Opus	0	skills/user-experience/output/{engagement-id}/ux-orchestrator-{topic-slug}.md
ux-heuristic-evaluator	Nielsen heuristic evaluation specialist	T3	Systematic	Haiku*	1	skills/ux-heuristic-eval/output/{engagement-id}/ux-heuristic-evaluator-{topic-slug}.md
ux-jtbd-analyst	Jobs-to-Be-Done research and analysis	T3	Divergent	Sonnet	1	skills/ux-jtbd/output/{engagement-id}/ux-jtbd-analyst-{topic-slug}.md
ux-lean-ux-facilitator	Lean UX hypothesis and experiment facilitation	T3	Systematic	Sonnet	2	skills/ux-lean-ux/output/{engagement-id}/ux-lean-ux-facilitator-{topic-slug}.md
ux-heart-analyst	HEART metrics framework specialist	T2	Systematic	Sonnet	2	skills/ux-heart-metrics/output/{engagement-id}/ux-heart-analyst-{topic-slug}.md
ux-atomic-architect	Atomic design component taxonomy architect	T3	Systematic	Sonnet	3	skills/ux-atomic-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-atomic-architect-{topic-slug}.md
ux-inclusive-evaluator	Inclusive design and accessibility auditor	T3	Systematic	Sonnet	3	skills/ux-inclusive-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-inclusive-evaluator-{topic-slug}.md
ux-behavior-diagnostician	Fogg B=MAP behavior bottleneck diagnosis	T2	Convergent	Sonnet	4	skills/ux-behavior-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-behavior-diagnostician-{topic-slug}.md
ux-kano-analyst	Kano model feature classification and prioritization	T2	Convergent	Sonnet	4	skills/ux-kano-model/output/{engagement-id}/ux-kano-analyst-{topic-slug}.md
ux-sprint-facilitator	AJ&Smart Design Sprint 2.0 facilitation	T3	Systematic	Opus	5	skills/ux-design-sprint/output/{engagement-id}/ux-sprint-facilitator-{topic-slug}.md
ux-ai-design-guide	AI-first interaction design specialist (CONDITIONAL)	T3	Divergent	Opus	5	skills/ux-ai-first-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-ai-design-guide-{topic-slug}.md

Tool tier key: T2 = Read-Write (Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Bash); T3 = T2 + External (WebSearch, WebFetch, Context7 MCP); T5 = T3 + T4 (Memory-Keeper) + Task (orchestration delegation). See agent-development-standards.md [Tool Security Tiers] for full definitions. All tier assignments follow the principle of least privilege (AR-006) — T2 agents (ux-heart-analyst, ux-behavior-diagnostician, ux-kano-analyst) operate on user-provided data only; T3 agents access external UX standards and documentation.

*Haiku for high-volume checklist evaluation; escalates to Sonnet when: (1) heuristic severity is "critical" (>= 3 critical findings), (2) Figma MCP benchmark fails pre-launch threshold, or (3) evaluation spans > 50 screens. Escalation is automatic within the orchestrator's routing logic per AD-M-009 model selection justification.

All agents produce output at three levels per AD-M-004:

• L0 (Executive Summary): Key findings in 3-5 bullets for stakeholders and cross-framework synthesis.
• L1 (Technical Detail): Full methodology execution with evidence, design recommendations, and component specifications.
• L2 (Strategic Implications): Cross-product patterns, organizational UX recommendations, and design evolution trajectory.

---

P-003 Compliance

The /user-experience skill enforces strict single-level nesting per H-01/P-003. Only ux-orchestrator has Task tool access. All 10 sub-skill agents are workers that MUST NOT include Task in their tool list.

MAIN CONTEXT (user request)
    |
    v
ux-orchestrator (T5, Opus, Integrative) -- routes, gates, synthesizes
    |
    +-- ux-heuristic-evaluator    (T3, Systematic, Haiku)     [Wave 1]
    +-- ux-jtbd-analyst           (T3, Divergent, Sonnet)     [Wave 1]
    +-- ux-lean-ux-facilitator    (T3, Systematic, Sonnet)    [Wave 2]
    +-- ux-heart-analyst          (T2, Systematic, Sonnet)    [Wave 2]
    +-- ux-atomic-architect       (T3, Systematic, Sonnet)    [Wave 3]
    +-- ux-inclusive-evaluator    (T3, Systematic, Sonnet)    [Wave 3]
    +-- ux-behavior-diagnostician (T2, Convergent, Sonnet)    [Wave 4]
    +-- ux-kano-analyst           (T2, Convergent, Sonnet)    [Wave 4]
    +-- ux-sprint-facilitator     (T3, Systematic, Opus)      [Wave 5]
    +-- ux-ai-design-guide        (T3, Divergent, Opus)       [Wave 5 COND]

Enforcement: Sub-skill agents declare disallowedTools: [Task] in .md frontmatter. CI gate validates no sub-skill agent has Task access (documented in skills/user-experience/rules/ci-checks.md). Each .governance.yaml includes Task prohibition in capabilities.forbidden_actions with P-003 consequence statement.

---

Invoking an Agent

Option 1: Natural Language Request

Describe your UX need; the orchestrator routes to the appropriate agent:

"Evaluate this dashboard design against Nielsen's heuristics"
"Map the jobs to be done for our onboarding flow"
"Set up a Lean UX experiment for the new search feature"
"Define HEART metrics for the checkout experience"
"Audit this form for WCAG 2.2 AA compliance"
"Run a design sprint for the new mobile navigation"
"Comprehensive UX audit of the settings page"
"CRISIS: users are abandoning checkout -- urgent UX triage"

Option 2: Explicit Agent Request

Request a specific agent by name:

"Use ux-heuristic-evaluator to audit the navigation patterns"
"Have ux-kano-analyst classify our backlog features"
"I need ux-inclusive-evaluator to review color contrast and screen reader compatibility"

Option 3: Native Agent Invocation (Task Tool)

The orchestrator invokes sub-skill agents as named subagents via Task:

Task(
    description="ux-heuristic-evaluator: Heuristic evaluation of settings page",
    subagent_type="ux-heuristic-evaluator",
    prompt="""
## UX CONTEXT (REQUIRED)
- **Engagement ID:** UX-0001
- **Topic:** Settings Page Heuristic Evaluation
- **Product:** [product name and domain]
- **Target Users:** [user description]

## TASK
Perform a Nielsen heuristic evaluation of the settings page.
Evaluate all 10 heuristics. Rate severity 0-4 for each finding.
Produce ranked findings with remediation recommendations.
"""
)

Claude Code enforces each agent's tools frontmatter -- worker agents only have access to their declared tool tier (T2 or T3).

---

Wave Architecture

Sub-skills deploy in 5 criteria-gated waves. Waves are deployment phases for incremental skill build-out, not runtime execution order. At runtime, the orchestrator routes to any deployed sub-skill based on user need.

Wave Definitions

Wave	Name	Sub-Skills	Entry Criteria	Bypass Condition
0	Foundation	ux-orchestrator + rules + templates	PROJ-022 plan approved	N/A
1	Zero-Dependency	/ux-heuristic-eval, /ux-jtbd	KICKOFF-SIGNOFF.md completed with MCP ownership assignments	N/A (first wave)
2	Data-Ready	/ux-lean-ux, /ux-heart-metrics	Wave 1: at least 1 heuristic eval completed AND 1 JTBD job statement used in a product decision	2 sprint cycles elapsed with no Wave 1 completion; documented rationale
3	Design System	/ux-atomic-design, /ux-inclusive-design	Wave 2: launched product with analytics OR 1 completed Lean UX hypothesis cycle	Storybook already in use (skip Lean UX prerequisite for Atomic Design)
4	Advanced Analytics	/ux-behavior-design, /ux-kano-model	Wave 3: Storybook with 5+ Atom stories AND 1 Persona Spectrum review	Existing user base with analytics (skip Persona Spectrum prerequisite)
5	Process Intensives	/ux-design-sprint, /ux-ai-first-design (COND)	Wave 4: 30+ users for Kano survey OR 1 B=MAP bottleneck diagnosed; AI-First: Enabler DONE + WSM >= 7.80	Design Sprint can proceed without Kano prerequisite if team has existing user research

Design Sprint early-access note: Design Sprint is placed in Wave 5 because it requires facilitation infrastructure (Figma + Miro REQ MCPs) and benefits from prior framework exposure. However, teams at product inception ("don't know what to build") who need Design Sprint immediately can use the wave bypass mechanism (3-field documentation: unmet criterion = "no prior wave completion", impact assessment = "sprint proceeds without prior framework calibration", remediation = "backfill Wave 1-2 sub-skills post-sprint"). The lifecycle-stage router handles this: the "Before design: Need validated prototype" route maps to /ux-design-sprint regardless of wave state — the orchestrator presents the bypass prompt if Wave 5 is not yet deployed. This ensures P-020 compliance: the user decides whether to proceed with bypass, not the system.

Wave Transition Quality Gates

Each wave transition is a quality checkpoint. The orchestrator checks WAVE-{N}-SIGNOFF.md existence before routing to Wave N+1 sub-skills.

Transition	Quality Check	Threshold
Wave 0 to 1	KICKOFF-SIGNOFF.md completeness	All fields populated (pass/fail)
Wave 1 to 2	Wave 1 deliverables quality scoring	S-014 composite >= 0.85 on heuristic eval report
Wave 2 to 3	Wave 2 deliverables + usage evidence	S-014 composite >= 0.85 + documented usage artifact
Wave 3 to 4	Wave 3 deliverables + Storybook artifact	S-014 composite >= 0.85 + Storybook story count verification
Wave 4 to 5	Wave 4 deliverables + user data evidence	S-014 composite >= 0.85 + user count or behavioral data artifact

Threshold justification (0.85 vs H-13 0.92): Wave transition gates assess sub-skill deployment readiness — whether a sub-skill produces useful output for end users. This is distinct from H-13's 0.92 threshold, which governs C2+ deliverable quality (agent definitions, rule files, governance artifacts). The 0.85 threshold reflects that wave gates evaluate operational output quality rather than governance artifact quality. Formal threshold derivation is tracked in ADR-PROJ022-002-wave-criteria-gates.md (pending); the threshold may be revised upward as calibration data from Wave 1 deployments becomes available.

Wave bypass: Requires 3-field documentation (unmet criterion, impact assessment, remediation plan with target date). Bypass state produces a warning banner on all sub-skill outputs from the bypassed wave. Cumulative ceiling: Maximum 2 concurrent bypasses per team. If a team has 2 active bypasses, the orchestrator requires remediation of at least one before granting additional bypasses. This prevents accumulation of technical UX debt through unbounded wave skipping.

Wave Signoff Enforcement

• WAVE-N-SIGNOFF.md is a closure deliverable -- wave completion is not recognized until the signoff file passes schema validation (all required fields non-empty) and is committed to the repository
• Wave transitions tracked via /worktracker entities
• Templates provided: skills/user-experience/templates/kickoff-signoff-template.md, skills/user-experience/templates/wave-signoff-template.md

---

Lifecycle-Stage Routing

The orchestrator routes requests through a multi-stage triage based on product lifecycle stage:

1. ONBOARD: Display HIGH RISK user research warning (first invocation per session)
2. CAPACITY CHECK: Ask team UX time allocation
   -> If < 20% of one person's time: recommend Wave 1 sub-skills only (P-020: user decides)
3. MCP CHECK: Detect MCP availability
   -> If MCP unavailable: route to non-MCP fallback paths
4. STAGE TRIAGE: Route by product stage
   |
   +-- "Before design: Don't know what to build"     -> /ux-jtbd
   +-- "Before design: Need to prioritize features"   -> /ux-kano-model
   +-- "Before design: Need validated prototype"        -> /ux-design-sprint
   +-- "During design: Iterating on existing design"   -> /ux-lean-ux OR /ux-heuristic-eval
   +-- "During design: Building component system"      -> /ux-atomic-design
   +-- "During design: Building AI product"            -> /ux-ai-first-design (if Enabler DONE)
   |                                                     OR /ux-heuristic-eval + PAIR (interim)
   +-- "After launch: Measure UX health"               -> /ux-heart-metrics
   +-- "After launch: Users not completing action"     -> /ux-behavior-design
   +-- "Any stage: Check accessibility"                -> /ux-inclusive-design
   +-- "CRISIS: Urgent UX problems"                    -> Emergency 3-skill sequence:
                                                          Heuristic Eval -> Behavior Design -> HEART

Dispatch logic: The orchestrator implements lifecycle-stage routing as a 4-step sequential triage within its <methodology> section. Each step is deterministic: (1) ONBOARD fires once per session via session state flag, (2) CAPACITY CHECK uses a single structured question per P-020, (3) MCP CHECK probes Context7 availability via a lightweight resolve call, (4) STAGE TRIAGE matches user intent against the route table above. If STAGE TRIAGE produces multiple matches (e.g., "iterate on our accessible checkout"), the orchestrator applies the ordering protocol from agent-routing-standards.md [Multi-Skill Combination]: content before quality, work before presentation. If ambiguity remains after ordering, the orchestrator asks the user per H-31 rather than guessing. The CRISIS path bypasses normal triage and executes a fixed 3-skill sequence; the user confirms entry into CRISIS mode but does not select individual sub-skills (P-020 compliance: user authorizes the emergency sequence, orchestrator selects the fixed route). Full CRISIS mode behavior will be specified in the ux-orchestrator agent <methodology> section (EPIC-001).

Common Intent-to-Route Resolution

User Says	Routes To	Qualification Question
"Improve my UX" / "Make this more usable"	Heuristic Eval (existing design) or Design Sprint (no design yet)	"Do you have an existing design?"
"Fix a specific UX problem"	Behavior Design (behavioral) or Heuristic Eval (design-level)	"Is the problem about user behavior or design quality?"
"Decide what to build"	JTBD (strategic) or Kano (prioritize known features)	"Are you defining the problem or prioritizing features?"
"Measure whether UX is working"	HEART Metrics	No qualification needed
"Make this accessible"	Inclusive Design	No qualification needed
"CRISIS: urgent UX problems"	Emergency 3-skill sequence	No qualification needed

Routing logic is documented in skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md.

---

Synthesis Hypothesis Validation

Multiple sub-skills produce AI-generated abstractions ("synthesis hypotheses") that may reflect training data biases rather than the team's specific users. A 3-tier confidence gate fires at skill invocation time.

Confidence Gate Protocol

Confidence	Gate Behavior	Advancement Rule
HIGH	User reviews output + acknowledges specific AI judgment calls via Synthesis Judgments Summary	Advances to design decisions after enumerated acknowledgment
MEDIUM	Requires expert review OR validation against 2-3 real user data points	Cannot advance to design decisions without named validation source
LOW	Output permanently labeled reference-only; design recommendation section structurally omitted	Cannot be overridden by any user action

Sub-Skill Synthesis Output Map

Sub-Skill	Synthesis Step	Typical Confidence
/ux-jtbd	Job statement synthesis from secondary research	MEDIUM
/ux-lean-ux	Assumption mapping; hypothesis generation	MEDIUM
/ux-design-sprint	Day 4 interview thematic analysis	HIGH
/ux-design-sprint	Day 2 sketch selection rationale	MEDIUM
/ux-inclusive-design	Persona Spectrum customization	MEDIUM
/ux-kano-model	Directional classification (5-8 respondents)	MEDIUM
/ux-kano-model	Feature priority conflict interpretation	LOW
/ux-behavior-design	B=MAP bottleneck diagnosis	MEDIUM
/ux-behavior-design	Design intervention recommendation	LOW
/ux-heart-metrics	Goal-metric mapping interpretation	MEDIUM
/ux-heart-metrics	Metric threshold recommendation	LOW
/ux-ai-first-design	AI interaction pattern recommendations	LOW

Gate Enforcement

• HIGH: Output includes a "Synthesis Judgments Summary" listing each AI judgment call. Acknowledgment prompt required before design recommendations are generated.
• MEDIUM: Output includes a "Validation Required" section with placeholder for named validation source (expert name, user data reference, or study citation). Design recommendations withheld until validation is provided.
• LOW: Output template structurally omits the design recommendation section. Tagged with [REFERENCE-ONLY] in title. Notice: "This output reflects AI synthesis from training data. It does not contain design recommendations."

Full protocol documented in skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md.

Cross-Framework Synthesis Protocol

When the orchestrator invokes multiple sub-skills for the same engagement (e.g., Heuristic Eval + HEART Metrics for a post-launch UX assessment), it produces a cross-framework synthesis after all sub-skill outputs are available:

Trigger: Two or more sub-skill outputs exist for the same engagement ID.

Mechanism (4-step sequential):

1. Signal Extraction: The orchestrator reads each sub-skill output's findings/recommendations sections and extracts actionable signals (findings rated severity >= 2 for heuristic eval; metrics below target for HEART; unvalidated assumptions for Lean UX; etc.).
2. Convergence Detection: Signals from different frameworks that point to the same UX problem are grouped. Convergent signals (2+ frameworks identify the same issue) receive HIGH synthesis confidence. Single-framework signals receive MEDIUM.
3. Contradiction Identification: Signals from different frameworks that recommend opposing actions are flagged as contradictions. Contradictions always receive LOW synthesis confidence with both positions presented and no resolution attempted — the user decides (P-020).
4. Unified Output: A synthesis report is produced with three sections: (a) Convergent Findings (HIGH confidence), (b) Single-Framework Findings (MEDIUM), (c) Contradictions (LOW, user decision required). Each finding traces back to its source sub-skill output by engagement ID and finding number.

Output location: skills/user-experience/output/{engagement-id}/ux-orchestrator-synthesis.md

Failure mode: If synthesis confidence is LOW across > 50% of findings, the orchestrator adds a banner: "Cross-framework synthesis produced mostly low-confidence results. Consider validating individual sub-skill outputs independently before acting on synthesis recommendations." This is a P-022 compliance mechanism — the orchestrator does not overstate the value of synthesis when evidence is weak.

Scope limitation (v1.0.0): Cross-framework synthesis operates on textual output from sub-skills. It does not access MCP design artifacts directly — synthesis inputs are the sub-skill reports, not raw Figma/Miro data. Future versions may add MCP-aware synthesis if usage patterns warrant it.

---

MCP Integration Architecture

Sub-Skill MCP Dependency Matrix

Sub-Skill	Figma	Miro	Storybook	Zeroheight	Hotjar (Bridge)	Whimsical
/ux-heuristic-eval	REQ	--	ENH	--	--	--
/ux-jtbd	--	ENH	--	--	--	--
/ux-lean-ux	ENH	REQ	--	--	ENH	--
/ux-heart-metrics	--	--	--	--	ENH	--
/ux-atomic-design	ENH	--	REQ	ENH	--	--
/ux-inclusive-design	REQ	--	ENH	--	--	--
/ux-behavior-design	--	ENH	--	--	ENH	--
/ux-kano-model	--	ENH	--	--	--	--
/ux-design-sprint	REQ	REQ	--	--	--	ENH
/ux-ai-first-design	REQ	--	ENH	--	--	--

REQ = Required (degraded mode + explicit error on failure). ENH = Enhancement (cosmetic limitation on failure).

Figma Dependency Risk Profile

Figma is the highest-risk MCP dependency: 4 sub-skills require it, 2 are enhanced by it (6 of 10 total connections).

Sub-Skill	Non-Figma Fallback
/ux-heuristic-eval	Screenshot-input mode: user provides design screenshots as image inputs
/ux-design-sprint	Miro-only mode: sprint exercises in Miro; manual prototype reference
/ux-inclusive-design	Screenshot-input mode: manual component screenshots for evaluation
/ux-ai-first-design	Manual design description: text-based interaction pattern analysis

Cost Tiers

Tier	Monthly Cost	Sub-Skills Available
Free	$0	HEART, JTBD, Kano, Behavior Design (+ Storybook for Atomic Design)
Minimal	~$46	+ Heuristic Eval, Design Sprint, Lean UX, Inclusive Design, AI-First Design
Full Enhancement	~$145-245	All 10 with full enhancement MCPs

Current Jerry MCP Integration

MCP Tool	Usage	Agents
Context7 (resolve-library-id)	Resolve UX framework libraries and design system packages	ux-atomic-architect, ux-ai-design-guide, ux-sprint-facilitator
Context7 (query-docs)	Query component library documentation, accessibility API docs	ux-atomic-architect, ux-inclusive-evaluator, ux-ai-design-guide, ux-sprint-facilitator

Fallback: Text-Only Mode

When MCP tools are unavailable, all agents operate in text-only mode: users provide design descriptions, screenshots, or markup instead of live design artifacts. The agent methodology remains identical; only the input modality changes. Agents MUST note "text-only mode -- no live design artifact access" in their output.

MCP coordination registry documented in skills/user-experience/rules/mcp-coordination.md.

---

Cross-Skill Integration

Integration Matrix

Jerry Skill	Integration Type	Direction	Details
/problem-solving	Research support	Upstream	ps-researcher provides market research for JTBD competitive job analysis; ps-analyst supports Kano survey data interpretation
/adversary	Quality enforcement	Applied to outputs	S-014 quality scoring on UX deliverables at wave transitions; full adversarial critique for C2+ artifacts per H-13/H-14
/worktracker	Operational tracking	Infrastructure	Tracks UX work items: sub-skill stories, wave transition tasks, Enabler status
/orchestration	Workflow coordination	Coordinates sub-skills	Manages multi-framework workflows; barrier-sync between sub-skills
/nasa-se	Requirements handoff	Downstream	UX requirements from JTBD job statements and heuristic findings feed into technical requirements and V&V criteria
/diataxis	Documentation method	Complementary	Component documentation (from Atomic Design) and design system guides use Diataxis methodology
/eng-team	Security integration	Complementary	Inclusive design findings feed into eng-security accessibility review; component taxonomy informs secure frontend patterns
/ast	Entity validation	Infrastructure	Worktracker entities for UX work items validated via AST-based frontmatter extraction (H-33)

Canonical Multi-Skill Workflow Sequences

Sequence	Skills Involved	Use Case
Discovery to Sprint	/ux-jtbd then /ux-design-sprint	JTBD job statement feeds Design Sprint challenge statement
Sprint to Iterate to Measure	/ux-design-sprint then /ux-lean-ux then /ux-heart-metrics	Sprint produces prototype; Lean UX iterates; HEART measures
Evaluate to Diagnose to Measure	/ux-heuristic-eval then /ux-behavior-design then /ux-heart-metrics	Crisis mode for urgent UX problems
Build to Evaluate	/ux-atomic-design then /ux-inclusive-design	Build components, then evaluate accessibility
Discover to Prioritize	/ux-jtbd then /ux-kano-model	Discover jobs, then prioritize features

Cross-Sub-Skill Handoff Data

Handoffs use the Jerry handoff protocol (schema specified in agent-development-standards.md [Handoff Protocol]; canonical path docs/schemas/handoff-v2.schema.json, pending file creation) with UX-specific artifact types:

From	To	Handoff Artifact
/ux-jtbd	/ux-design-sprint	Job statement + switch forces
/ux-jtbd	/ux-kano-model	Job-derived feature list
/ux-design-sprint	/ux-lean-ux	Validated prototype + Day 4 findings
/ux-heuristic-eval	/ux-behavior-design	Severity-rated findings
/ux-atomic-design	/ux-inclusive-design	Component inventory with Storybook references
/ux-lean-ux	/ux-heart-metrics	Validated/invalidated hypothesis backlog

Handoff schema documented in skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md [PARTIAL: EPIC-001 — routing table populated with stage mappings, qualification questions, and common intent resolution; full handoff schema pending].

---

Constitutional Compliance

All agents adhere to the Jerry Constitution v1.0:

Principle	Requirement	Consequence of Violation
P-003	NEVER spawn recursive subagents -- max 1 level	Agent hierarchy violation; uncontrolled token consumption
P-020	NEVER override user intent -- ask before destructive ops	Unauthorized action; trust erosion
P-022	NEVER deceive about actions, capabilities, or confidence	Governance undermined; quality assessment invalidated
P-001	NEVER present findings without evidence or source citations	Unreliable outputs; unfounded claims propagate downstream
P-002	NEVER leave outputs in transient context only -- persist to files	Context rot vulnerability; artifacts lost on session compaction
P-004	NEVER omit reasoning provenance or source documentation	Untraceable decisions; audit trail broken
P-011	NEVER make recommendations without supporting evidence	Unsupported recommendations; confidence inflated without basis

Per-agent enforcement: Every agent (orchestrator + 10 sub-skill agents) declares in .governance.yaml:

• constitution.principles_applied: P-003, P-020, P-022 (minimum; additional principles per agent)
• capabilities.forbidden_actions: Minimum 3 entries in NPT-009 format referencing the constitutional triplet
• Sub-skill agents: disallowedTools: [Task] in .md frontmatter (P-003 enforcement)
• Domain-specific forbidden actions added per agent role

---

Quick Reference

Common Workflows

Need	Agent	Command Example
Usability audit	ux-heuristic-evaluator	"Evaluate this dashboard against Nielsen's 10 heuristics"
User motivation research	ux-jtbd-analyst	"Map the jobs to be done for onboarding"
Experiment design	ux-lean-ux-facilitator	"Create a Lean UX hypothesis for the new search feature"
UX metrics definition	ux-heart-analyst	"Define HEART metrics for the checkout flow"
Component taxonomy	ux-atomic-architect	"Build an atomic design inventory for the form components"
Accessibility audit	ux-inclusive-evaluator	"Audit this page for WCAG 2.2 AA compliance"
Behavior diagnosis	ux-behavior-diagnostician	"Diagnose why users abandon signup using Fogg B=MAP"
Feature prioritization	ux-kano-analyst	"Classify these backlog features using Kano analysis"
Rapid prototyping	ux-sprint-facilitator	"Facilitate a design sprint for the mobile navigation redesign"
AI interaction design	ux-ai-design-guide	"Design the conversational UX for the AI assistant feature"
Comprehensive audit	ux-orchestrator	"Full UX audit of the settings experience"
Urgent triage	ux-orchestrator	"CRISIS: users are abandoning checkout"

Agent Selection Hints

Keywords	Likely Agent
heuristic, usability, Nielsen, severity, inspection, evaluation, interface review	ux-heuristic-evaluator
jobs to be done, JTBD, switch interview, outcome, motivation, hiring criteria, user jobs	ux-jtbd-analyst
lean UX, hypothesis, experiment, MVP, validated learning, assumption, build-measure-learn	ux-lean-ux-facilitator
HEART, metrics, happiness, engagement, adoption, retention, task success, GSM, measurement	ux-heart-analyst
atomic design, atoms, molecules, organisms, components, design tokens, design system	ux-atomic-architect
accessibility, WCAG, ARIA, screen reader, contrast, cognitive load, inclusive, a11y	ux-inclusive-evaluator
behavior, Fogg, B=MAP, motivation, ability, prompt, trigger, nudge, behavioral bottleneck	ux-behavior-diagnostician
Kano, must-be, attractive, one-dimensional, satisfaction, feature classification, delighter	ux-kano-analyst
design sprint, map, sketch, decide, prototype, test, GV sprint, rapid validation	ux-sprint-facilitator
AI design, conversational UX, prompt design, trust calibration, AI-first, LLM interface, agentic	ux-ai-design-guide

Routing Disambiguation

Condition	Use Instead	Why
Security-focused review or threat modeling	/eng-team	UX methodology produces usability findings, not threat models
Adversarial quality review or tournament	/adversary	UX agents evaluate design quality, not deliverable quality
General research without UX focus	/problem-solving	11 UX agents loaded when task requires general methodology
Systems engineering or V&V	/nasa-se	UX produces user-centered requirements, not system-level V&V
Offensive security testing	/red-team	UX methodology produces usability reports, not penetration findings

---

References

Agent Definition Files

Status key: Exists (stub) = stub file created with frontmatter and minimal sections. [PLANNED: Wave N] = file not yet created; created during that wave's implementation in PROJ-022.

Agent	Definition	Governance	Status
ux-orchestrator	skills/user-experience/agents/ux-orchestrator.md	skills/user-experience/agents/ux-orchestrator.governance.yaml	Exists (stub)
ux-heuristic-evaluator	skills/ux-heuristic-eval/agents/ux-heuristic-evaluator.md	skills/ux-heuristic-eval/agents/ux-heuristic-evaluator.governance.yaml	Exists (stub)
ux-jtbd-analyst	skills/ux-jtbd/agents/ux-jtbd-analyst.md	skills/ux-jtbd/agents/ux-jtbd-analyst.governance.yaml	Exists (stub)
ux-lean-ux-facilitator	skills/ux-lean-ux/agents/ux-lean-ux-facilitator.md	skills/ux-lean-ux/agents/ux-lean-ux-facilitator.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 2]
ux-heart-analyst	skills/ux-heart-metrics/agents/ux-heart-analyst.md	skills/ux-heart-metrics/agents/ux-heart-analyst.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 2]
ux-atomic-architect	skills/ux-atomic-design/agents/ux-atomic-architect.md	skills/ux-atomic-design/agents/ux-atomic-architect.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 3]
ux-inclusive-evaluator	skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md	skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 3]
ux-behavior-diagnostician	skills/ux-behavior-design/agents/ux-behavior-diagnostician.md	skills/ux-behavior-design/agents/ux-behavior-diagnostician.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 4]
ux-kano-analyst	skills/ux-kano-model/agents/ux-kano-analyst.md	skills/ux-kano-model/agents/ux-kano-analyst.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 4]
ux-sprint-facilitator	skills/ux-design-sprint/agents/ux-sprint-facilitator.md	skills/ux-design-sprint/agents/ux-sprint-facilitator.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 5]
ux-ai-design-guide	skills/ux-ai-first-design/agents/ux-ai-design-guide.md	skills/ux-ai-first-design/agents/ux-ai-design-guide.governance.yaml	[PLANNED: Wave 5]

Rule Files

Rule files are [STUB: EPIC-001 Foundation] — stub files created during PROJ-022 Foundation phase with section structure and TODO markers. Full implementation in EPIC-001.

Rule File	Purpose	Status
skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md	Lifecycle-stage triage logic, cross-sub-skill handoff schema	[PARTIAL: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md	3-tier synthesis hypothesis confidence gates	[STUB: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/rules/wave-progression.md	Wave state tracking and ABANDON log	[STUB: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/rules/mcp-coordination.md	MCP server coordination registry, maintenance owner	[STUB: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/rules/ci-checks.md	CI test gate specifications (P-003 enforcement)	[STUB: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/rules/metrics-plan.md	Post-launch metrics measurement plan	[PLANNED: EPIC-008]

Templates

Template files are [STUB: EPIC-001 Foundation] — stub files created during PROJ-022 Foundation phase with template structure. Full implementation in EPIC-001.

Template	Purpose	Status
skills/user-experience/templates/kickoff-signoff-template.md	KICKOFF-SIGNOFF.md for Wave 0 to 1 transition	[STUB: EPIC-001]
skills/user-experience/templates/wave-signoff-template.md	WAVE-N-SIGNOFF.md for wave transitions	[STUB: EPIC-001]

Project and Spec Links

Item	Location
GitHub Issue (authoritative spec)	#138
Issue body (main spec)	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/issue-drafts/gh-ready/issue-body.md
Tech spec (agents, MCP, cognitive modes)	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/issue-drafts/gh-ready/comment-2-tech-spec.md
Appendices (directory structure, scores)	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/issue-drafts/gh-ready/comment-3-appendices.md
Acceptance criteria	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/issue-drafts/gh-ready/comment-1-acceptance-criteria.md
PROJ-022 PLAN.md	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/PLAN.md
PROJ-022 WORKTRACKER.md	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/WORKTRACKER.md

Standards References

Standard	Location
Agent Definition Format (H-34)	.context/rules/agent-development-standards.md
Agent Governance Schema	docs/schemas/agent-governance-v1.schema.json
Skill Standards (H-25, H-26)	.context/rules/skill-standards.md
Quality Enforcement SSOT (H-13, H-14)	.context/rules/quality-enforcement.md
Mandatory Skill Usage (H-22)	.context/rules/mandatory-skill-usage.md
Agent Routing Standards (H-36)	.context/rules/agent-routing-standards.md
Handoff Schema	docs/schemas/handoff-v2.schema.json (canonical path per agent-development-standards.md; file pending creation)
ADR: UX Skill Architecture	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/decisions/ADR-PROJ022-001-ux-skill-architecture.md (PROVISIONAL)
ADR: Wave Criteria Gates	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/decisions/ADR-PROJ022-002-wave-criteria-gates.md (PROVISIONAL)
MCP Tool Standards	.context/rules/mcp-tool-standards.md

UX Framework References

Framework	Source	Year	URL
Nielsen's 10 Usability Heuristics	Jakob Nielsen, Nielsen Norman Group	1994 (updated 2024)	https://www.nngroup.com/articles/ten-usability-heuristics/
Jobs-to-Be-Done	Clayton Christensen, Anthony Ulwick (ODI)	2003/2016	https://jobs-to-be-done.com/jobs-to-be-done-a-framework-for-customer-needs-c883cbbbe61f
Lean UX	Jeff Gothelf and Josh Seiden	2013 (3rd ed. 2021)	https://www.jeffgothelf.com/lean-ux-book/
Google HEART Framework	Kerry Rodden, Hilary Hutchinson, Xin Fu	2010	https://research.google/pubs/measuring-the-user-experience-on-a-large-scale-user-centered-metrics-for-web-applications/
Atomic Design	Brad Frost	2016	https://atomicdesign.bradfrost.com/
WCAG 2.2	W3C Web Accessibility Initiative	2023	https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
Microsoft Inclusive Design	Microsoft	2016	https://inclusive.microsoft.design/
Fogg Behavior Model	BJ Fogg, Stanford Persuasive Tech Lab	2009 (B=MAP 2019)	https://behaviormodel.org/
Kano Model	Noriaki Kano et al.	1984	Kano, N., Seraku, N., Takahashi, F., & Tsuji, S. (1984). Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality. Journal of the Japanese Society for Quality Control, 14(2), 39-48.
AJ&Smart Design Sprint 2.0	Jake Knapp / AJ&Smart	2016/2019	https://ajsmart.com/design-sprint

Research Provenance

Artifact	Location	Created	Quality Gate
Architecture Vision	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/analysis/ux-skill-architecture-vision.md	2026-03-03	C3 initial score 0.83, iterated to C4
Framework Selection Analysis	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/analysis/ux-framework-selection.md	2026-03-03	C3 (part of architecture vision pipeline)
UX Frameworks Survey	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/research/ux-frameworks-survey.md	2026-03-02	C3 research (ps-researcher)
Tiny Teams Research	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/research/tiny-teams-research.md	2026-03-02	C3 research (ps-researcher)
MCP Design Tools Survey	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/research/mcp-design-tools-survey.md	2026-03-02	C3 research (ps-researcher)
Tournament Reports (Iter 1-8)	projects/PROJ-020-feature-enhancements/work/issue-drafts/tournament-iter1/ through tournament-iter8/	2026-03-03	C4 tournament (8 iterations, final spec passed)

---

Skill Version: 1.0.0
Constitutional Compliance: Jerry Constitution v1.0
SSOT: .context/rules/quality-enforcement.md (thresholds), GitHub Issue #138 (spec)
PROJ-022: User Experience Skill
Last Updated: 2026-03-03