Heatmap analyst skill

Click-engagement analyst that pulls element-level click data, a page-level scroll proxy, and bounce/exit signals from Humblytics to surface UX friction and ignored CTAs.

by Humblytics·MIT license·★ 85 Stars on the repo·GitHub ↗

Use now

Inside this skill

SKILL.md · the author's own words
# Heatmap Analyst

## Purpose

Analyze Humblytics click-engagement data (element/target-level clicks, a single page-level scroll proxy, and bounce/exit signals) to diagno…

> **Scope note — what Humblytics does and does not give you.** Humblytics provides **element/target-level click counts** (with UTM breakdow…

## When to Use

- A page has a high bounce rate and you need to understand *why*
- CTAs are present but click-through rate is below benchmark
- You want to verify that the important content is actually being seen
- Users are reporting confusion or friction on a specific page
- You're auditing a page before a redesign or A/B test
- Investigating whether traffic from a specific source behaves differently on-page

Word-for-word excerpt, not a result. Read the full SKILL.md ↓

Files of Heatmap analyst

Humblytics/main1 file shown
SKILL.md
Show the full text168 lines

Heatmap Analyst

Purpose

Analyze Humblytics click-engagement data (element/target-level clicks, a single page-level scroll proxy, and bounce/exit signals) to diagnose UX friction and generate prioritized design recommendations. Live data comes from the Humblytics MCP (the click and page tools — get_clicks_details, get_clicks_breakdown, get_page_details, get_pages_breakdown, get_entry_exit_pages). This skill turns the interaction data Humblytics actually exposes into specific, ranked improvements for layout, CTAs, and content hierarchy.

Scope note — what Humblytics does and does not give you. Humblytics provides element/target-level click counts (with UTM breakdown), a single average scroll percentage per page, and bounce/exit signals. It does NOT provide pixel-level click heatmaps (x/y coordinates), a 25/50/75/100 scroll-depth distribution, rage-click detection, dead-zone maps, or per-device click segmentation. Anything in that second list requires a dedicated heatmap tool (e.g. Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity) — do not promise it from Humblytics. See "NOT available via Humblytics" below.

When to Use

  • A page has a high bounce rate and you need to understand why
  • CTAs are present but click-through rate is below benchmark
  • You want to verify that the important content is actually being seen
  • Users are reporting confusion or friction on a specific page
  • You're auditing a page before a redesign or A/B test
  • Investigating whether traffic from a specific source behaves differently on-page

Setup

This skill reads live data through the Humblytics MCP (server humblytics) — see the repo README to connect it. Once connected, the skill calls mcp__humblytics__* tools; the MCP handles auth, base URL, and property resolution, so there are no keys to paste or .env files to source here. Never paste API keys into chat — the key lives once in the MCP connection headers, not in transcripts.

The MCP auto-resolves the property for a single-property key (the common case). For a multi-property key, call list_properties and pass the chosen propertyId to each tool.

Before You Start

  1. Confirm the property — With a multi-property key, run list_properties and confirm which property to analyze (single-property keys auto-resolve)
  2. Identify the target page(s) — Which URL(s) are in scope
  3. Time range — Default to last 30 days; shorter windows are noisier
  4. Sample size check — Pages below ~500 sessions in the window produce unreliable heatmaps
  5. Context — Pull product/persona context if available so recommendations match the audience

Core Workflow

Step 1: Pull the Interaction Data

For each target page, fetch what the API actually returns:

  • Element-level clicks — clicks grouped by element target (and secondary), with clicks, unique_sessions, most_recent, a per-element trend, and a utm_breakdown (clicks + share by UTM source/medium/campaign). This is element-level, not an x/y coordinate map.
  • Scroll proxy — a single avg_scroll_percent for the page (one number, e.g. 23.7), plus bounce_rate, page_views, unique_visitors, avg_session_length. This is not a 25/50/75/100 depth distribution.
  • Cross-page click comparison — per-page total_clicks, unique_sessions, and top_targets[]{target, clicks, share}.
  • Entry/exit friction — entry and exit pages as a friction proxy.

Click CTR is not a field in the API — derive an engagement rate yourself as clicks / unique_sessions (or per-page top_target.share) when you need a CTR-like proxy.

Relevant Humblytics MCP tools (all take start, end as ISO-8601 and a timezone IANA name — there is no ?period= shorthand; scroll depth lives in the page tools):

  • get_clicks_details (page: "/path") — element/target-level clicks + UTM breakdown for one page
  • get_clicks_breakdown — cross-page top targets
  • get_page_details (page: "/path") — avg_scroll_percent (scroll proxy) + bounce_rate for one page
  • get_pages_breakdown — page-level views/bounce across pages
  • get_entry_exit_pages — entry/exit friction proxy

NOT available via Humblytics (needs a dedicated heatmap tool): pixel-level click coordinate heatmaps, scroll-depth distribution (25/50/75/100%), rage-click detection, dead-zone maps, and per-device click segmentation. If the user needs any of these, tell them Humblytics does not return them and point to a purpose-built heatmap tool (Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, etc.).

Step 2: The Three Diagnostic Questions

Run each page through these three questions, using only data the API returns:

Q1 — Are visitors clicking what you want them to click?

  • Primary CTA click share: is the CTA target a meaningful fraction of total_clicks (use its share from get_clicks_breakdown or clicks from get_clicks_details)?
  • Secondary CTA click share: proportional to its importance?
  • Which target dominates clicks, and is it a high-value action or a low-value/navigation element?

Q2 — Are visitors engaging deeply enough to see the important content?

  • avg_scroll_percent: a low average (e.g. ~24%) suggests most visitors never reach below-fold content. This is a single average, not a depth distribution — do not claim "X% reached 50%".
  • Is the primary CTA likely above or below where that average scroll lands?
  • Cross-reference with bounce_rate from get_page_details.

Q3 — Where is the friction?

  • High bounce_rate / exit share (from get_page_details and get_entry_exit_pages) on a page that should convert = friction proxy.
  • Low scroll engagement on a long page where the CTA sits deep.
  • A CTA target that gets almost no clicks despite high page views = ignored CTA.

Frustration signals like rage clicks and clicks on non-interactive elements are not available from Humblytics — use the friction proxies above, and recommend a dedicated heatmap/session-replay tool if true rage-click detection is needed.

Step 3: Identify the Top 3 Issues

Rank all issues by expected conversion impact:

  1. Blocker — Primary CTA gets a negligible share of clicks, or low avg_scroll_percent suggests core content is rarely reached
  2. Friction — High bounce_rate / exit share on a page meant to convert; confusing affordances
  3. Waste — High click share on low-value elements (e.g., a Link/nav target dominating clicks instead of the CTA)

Always state the evidence: "avg_scroll_percent on the homepage is 24% and bounce_rate is 0.89, while the signup CTA hero-try-free took only 1.2% of clicks."

Step 4: Generate Recommendations

For each issue, provide:

  • Specific change — "Move CTA from below the pricing table to above the hero fold"
  • Expected lift — Estimate based on traffic volume and issue severity
  • Implementation difficulty — Copy change / layout change / redesign
  • How to verify — Which metric to watch; which follow-up A/B test validates the fix
Step 5: Output Format

Write a clean report with:

PAGE: [/path]
DATE RANGE: [window]
PAGE VIEWS / UNIQUE VISITORS: [page_views] / [unique_visitors]

HEADLINE FINDING:
[1 sentence capturing the biggest insight]

CLICK PATTERN SUMMARY (from get_clicks_details + get_clicks_breakdown):
- Primary CTA target + click share: [target] ([share]% of clicks)
- Highest-click element: [target] ([share]% of clicks)
- Total clicks / unique sessions: [total_clicks] / [unique_sessions]
- Notable UTM skew (if any): [utm_source/medium] drives [share]% of a target's clicks

SCROLL ENGAGEMENT (from get_page_details — single average, not a distribution):
- avg_scroll_percent: [N]%
- Implication: [most visitors likely do / do not reach below-fold content]

FRICTION PROXIES:
- bounce_rate: [N]
- Top exit pages (get_entry_exit_pages): [pages]

TOP 3 RECOMMENDATIONS (prioritized):
1. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]
2. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]
3. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]

SUGGESTED A/B TESTS:
- [Test hypothesis with clear control vs variant]

Interpretation Cheatsheet

Based only on Humblytics-available signals (element-level click shares, single avg_scroll_percent, bounce_rate/exit):

Pattern Likely Cause Action
A generic Link/nav target dominates clicks, CTA target near zero CTA invisible, weak, or out-competed by navigation Strengthen CTA prominence; reduce competing links
Low avg_scroll_percent on a long page Weak hook, above-fold doesn't earn attention Rewrite headline or move proof/CTA above the fold
CTA clicks concentrated on one variant Other CTAs are invisible or redundant Remove redundant CTAs; test single CTA variant
High bounce_rate + low scroll on a convert-intent page Above-fold fails to engage Audit hero copy/offer; move value prop up
Click share spread thinly across many targets No clear visual hierarchy Add hierarchy: emphasize primary action
One UTM source's clicks skew heavily to a low-value target Mismatched intent from that channel Align landing experience to that source's intent

Patterns that require pixel coordinates, rage-click detection, or per-device click maps (e.g. "rage clicks on image", "desktop clicks ≠ mobile clicks") are not diagnosable from Humblytics — use a dedicated heatmap tool.

  • cro-optimizer — Combines heatmap findings with funnel data for holistic CRO
  • page-cro — Full 10-point page audit; heatmap analysis is one dimension
  • ab-test-generator — Takes heatmap recommendations and launches them as tests

Shared Frameworks (REQUIRED reading)

Heatmap interpretation is highly context-dependent. The shared primitives in skills/_shared/ keep recommendations grounded.

  • _shared/frameworks/preflight-checklist.md — confirm minimum 500 sessions per page-period combo before drawing conclusions. Heatmap patterns on smaller samples are noise.
  • _shared/frameworks/anti-patterns.md — heatmap-relevant counter-evidence:
    • Mobile hamburger menu: NN/g says it hurts discoverability on task-oriented SaaS (Spotify hamburger → bottom-tab = +30% menu interactions). BUT Amazon's hamburger beat dropdown for browse-heavy ecom. Site_type is load-bearing — don't recommend bottom-tab universally.
    • Mobile exit-intent: architecturally broken (no cursor → no mouseleave event). If heatmap shows users leaving on mobile, the answer is not an exit modal.
    • Progress-bar velocity: NIH RCT shows slow-to-fast progress bars nearly double form abandonment. If your heatmap shows form-step drop-off, audit progress bar acceleration before redesigning fields.
  • _shared/benchmarks/patterns.json — when heatmap data confirms a problem (e.g., low scroll past 30%, CTA clicks dominated by a single variant), match to a pattern_id and quote the evidence-backed lift range for the fix. Most relevant categories: cta, navigation, above_fold.
1---
2name: heatmap-analyst
3description: "Click-engagement analyst that pulls element-level click data, a page-level scroll proxy, and bounce/exit signals from Humblytics to surface UX friction and ignored CTAs. Generates prioritized, data-backed optimization recommendations. NOTE: Humblytics does NOT provide pixel-level click heatmaps, scroll-depth distributions, or rage-click detection — those need a dedicated heatmap tool. Use when auditing element-level click patterns, finding ignored CTAs, gauging scroll engagement, or diagnosing on-page friction. Triggers: click analysis, element clicks, ignored CTA, click engagement, scroll engagement, UX friction, interaction audit."
4metadata:
5 version: 1.0.0
6 author: Humblytics
7---
8 
9# Heatmap Analyst
10 
11## Purpose
12 
13Analyze Humblytics click-engagement data (element/target-level clicks, a single page-level scroll proxy, and bounce/exit signals) to diagnose UX friction and generate prioritized design recommendations. Live data comes from the Humblytics MCP (the click and page tools — `get_clicks_details`, `get_clicks_breakdown`, `get_page_details`, `get_pages_breakdown`, `get_entry_exit_pages`). This skill turns the interaction data Humblytics actually exposes into specific, ranked improvements for layout, CTAs, and content hierarchy.
14 
15> **Scope note — what Humblytics does and does not give you.** Humblytics provides **element/target-level click counts** (with UTM breakdown), a **single average scroll percentage** per page, and **bounce/exit** signals. It does **NOT** provide pixel-level click heatmaps (x/y coordinates), a 25/50/75/100 scroll-depth distribution, rage-click detection, dead-zone maps, or per-device click segmentation. Anything in that second list requires a dedicated heatmap tool (e.g. Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity) — do not promise it from Humblytics. See **"NOT available via Humblytics"** below.
16 
17## When to Use
18 
19- A page has a high bounce rate and you need to understand *why*
20- CTAs are present but click-through rate is below benchmark
21- You want to verify that the important content is actually being seen
22- Users are reporting confusion or friction on a specific page
23- You're auditing a page before a redesign or A/B test
24- Investigating whether traffic from a specific source behaves differently on-page
25 
26## Setup
27 
28This skill reads live data through the **Humblytics MCP** (server `humblytics`) — see the repo README to connect it. Once connected, the skill calls `mcp__humblytics__*` tools; the MCP handles auth, base URL, and property resolution, so there are no keys to paste or `.env` files to source here. **Never paste API keys into chat** — the key lives once in the MCP connection headers, not in transcripts.
29 
30The MCP auto-resolves the property for a single-property key (the common case). For a multi-property key, call `list_properties` and pass the chosen `propertyId` to each tool.
31 
32## Before You Start
33 
341. **Confirm the property** — With a multi-property key, run `list_properties` and confirm which property to analyze (single-property keys auto-resolve)
352. **Identify the target page(s)** — Which URL(s) are in scope
363. **Time range** — Default to last 30 days; shorter windows are noisier
374. **Sample size check** — Pages below ~500 sessions in the window produce unreliable heatmaps
385. **Context** — Pull product/persona context if available so recommendations match the audience
39 
40## Core Workflow
41 
42### Step 1: Pull the Interaction Data
43 
44For each target page, fetch what the API actually returns:
45 
46- **Element-level clicks** — clicks grouped by element `target` (and `secondary`), with `clicks`, `unique_sessions`, `most_recent`, a per-element `trend`, and a `utm_breakdown` (clicks + share by UTM source/medium/campaign). This is element-level, **not** an x/y coordinate map.
47- **Scroll proxy** — a single `avg_scroll_percent` for the page (one number, e.g. 23.7), plus `bounce_rate`, `page_views`, `unique_visitors`, `avg_session_length`. This is **not** a 25/50/75/100 depth distribution.
48- **Cross-page click comparison** — per-page `total_clicks`, `unique_sessions`, and `top_targets[]{target, clicks, share}`.
49- **Entry/exit friction** — entry and exit pages as a friction proxy.
50 
51> Click **CTR is not a field** in the API — derive an engagement rate yourself as `clicks / unique_sessions` (or per-page `top_target.share`) when you need a CTR-like proxy.
52 
53Relevant Humblytics MCP tools (all take `start`, `end` as ISO-8601 and a `timezone` IANA name — there is no `?period=` shorthand; scroll depth lives in the page tools):
54- `get_clicks_details` (`page: "/path"`) — element/target-level clicks + UTM breakdown for one page
55- `get_clicks_breakdown` — cross-page top targets
56- `get_page_details` (`page: "/path"`) — `avg_scroll_percent` (scroll proxy) + `bounce_rate` for one page
57- `get_pages_breakdown` — page-level views/bounce across pages
58- `get_entry_exit_pages` — entry/exit friction proxy
59 
60> **NOT available via Humblytics (needs a dedicated heatmap tool):** pixel-level click coordinate heatmaps, scroll-depth distribution (25/50/75/100%), rage-click detection, dead-zone maps, and per-device click segmentation. If the user needs any of these, tell them Humblytics does not return them and point to a purpose-built heatmap tool (Hotjar, Microsoft Clarity, etc.).
61 
62### Step 2: The Three Diagnostic Questions
63 
64Run each page through these three questions, using only data the API returns:
65 
66**Q1 — Are visitors clicking what you *want* them to click?**
67- Primary CTA click share: is the CTA `target` a meaningful fraction of `total_clicks` (use its `share` from `get_clicks_breakdown` or `clicks` from `get_clicks_details`)?
68- Secondary CTA click share: proportional to its importance?
69- Which `target` dominates clicks, and is it a high-value action or a low-value/navigation element?
70 
71**Q2 — Are visitors engaging deeply enough to *see* the important content?**
72- `avg_scroll_percent`: a low average (e.g. ~24%) suggests most visitors never reach below-fold content. This is a single average, **not** a depth distribution — do not claim "X% reached 50%".
73- Is the primary CTA likely above or below where that average scroll lands?
74- Cross-reference with `bounce_rate` from `get_page_details`.
75 
76**Q3 — Where is the friction?**
77- High `bounce_rate` / exit share (from `get_page_details` and `get_entry_exit_pages`) on a page that should convert = friction proxy.
78- Low scroll engagement on a long page where the CTA sits deep.
79- A CTA `target` that gets almost no clicks despite high page views = ignored CTA.
80 
81> Frustration signals like rage clicks and clicks on non-interactive elements are **not** available from Humblytics — use the friction proxies above, and recommend a dedicated heatmap/session-replay tool if true rage-click detection is needed.
82 
83### Step 3: Identify the Top 3 Issues
84 
85Rank all issues by **expected conversion impact**:
86 
871. **Blocker** — Primary CTA gets a negligible share of clicks, or low `avg_scroll_percent` suggests core content is rarely reached
882. **Friction** — High `bounce_rate` / exit share on a page meant to convert; confusing affordances
893. **Waste** — High click share on low-value elements (e.g., a `Link`/nav target dominating clicks instead of the CTA)
90 
91Always state the evidence: *"avg_scroll_percent on the homepage is 24% and bounce_rate is 0.89, while the signup CTA `hero-try-free` took only 1.2% of clicks."*
92 
93### Step 4: Generate Recommendations
94 
95For each issue, provide:
96 
97- **Specific change** — "Move CTA from below the pricing table to above the hero fold"
98- **Expected lift** — Estimate based on traffic volume and issue severity
99- **Implementation difficulty** — Copy change / layout change / redesign
100- **How to verify** — Which metric to watch; which follow-up A/B test validates the fix
101 
102### Step 5: Output Format
103 
104Write a clean report with:
105 
106```
107PAGE: [/path]
108DATE RANGE: [window]
109PAGE VIEWS / UNIQUE VISITORS: [page_views] / [unique_visitors]
110 
111HEADLINE FINDING:
112[1 sentence capturing the biggest insight]
113 
114CLICK PATTERN SUMMARY (from get_clicks_details + get_clicks_breakdown):
115- Primary CTA target + click share: [target] ([share]% of clicks)
116- Highest-click element: [target] ([share]% of clicks)
117- Total clicks / unique sessions: [total_clicks] / [unique_sessions]
118- Notable UTM skew (if any): [utm_source/medium] drives [share]% of a target's clicks
119 
120SCROLL ENGAGEMENT (from get_page_details — single average, not a distribution):
121- avg_scroll_percent: [N]%
122- Implication: [most visitors likely do / do not reach below-fold content]
123 
124FRICTION PROXIES:
125- bounce_rate: [N]
126- Top exit pages (get_entry_exit_pages): [pages]
127 
128TOP 3 RECOMMENDATIONS (prioritized):
1291. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]
1302. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]
1313. [Change] — Expected impact: [X] — Difficulty: [level]
132 
133SUGGESTED A/B TESTS:
134- [Test hypothesis with clear control vs variant]
135```
136 
137## Interpretation Cheatsheet
138 
139Based only on Humblytics-available signals (element-level click shares, single `avg_scroll_percent`, `bounce_rate`/exit):
140 
141| Pattern | Likely Cause | Action |
142|---------|--------------|--------|
143| A generic `Link`/nav `target` dominates clicks, CTA `target` near zero | CTA invisible, weak, or out-competed by navigation | Strengthen CTA prominence; reduce competing links |
144| Low `avg_scroll_percent` on a long page | Weak hook, above-fold doesn't earn attention | Rewrite headline or move proof/CTA above the fold |
145| CTA clicks concentrated on one variant | Other CTAs are invisible or redundant | Remove redundant CTAs; test single CTA variant |
146| High `bounce_rate` + low scroll on a convert-intent page | Above-fold fails to engage | Audit hero copy/offer; move value prop up |
147| Click share spread thinly across many targets | No clear visual hierarchy | Add hierarchy: emphasize primary action |
148| One UTM source's clicks skew heavily to a low-value target | Mismatched intent from that channel | Align landing experience to that source's intent |
149 
150> Patterns that require pixel coordinates, rage-click detection, or per-device click maps (e.g. "rage clicks on image", "desktop clicks ≠ mobile clicks") are **not** diagnosable from Humblytics — use a dedicated heatmap tool.
151 
152## Related Skills
153 
154- `cro-optimizer` — Combines heatmap findings with funnel data for holistic CRO
155- `page-cro` — Full 10-point page audit; heatmap analysis is one dimension
156- `ab-test-generator` — Takes heatmap recommendations and launches them as tests
157 
158## Shared Frameworks (REQUIRED reading)
159 
160Heatmap interpretation is highly context-dependent. The shared primitives in `skills/_shared/` keep recommendations grounded.
161 
162- **`_shared/frameworks/preflight-checklist.md`** — confirm minimum 500 sessions per page-period combo before drawing conclusions. Heatmap patterns on smaller samples are noise.
163- **`_shared/frameworks/anti-patterns.md`** — heatmap-relevant counter-evidence:
164 - **Mobile hamburger menu**: NN/g says it hurts discoverability on task-oriented SaaS (Spotify hamburger → bottom-tab = +30% menu interactions). **BUT** Amazon's hamburger beat dropdown for browse-heavy ecom. Site_type is load-bearing — don't recommend bottom-tab universally.
165 - **Mobile exit-intent**: architecturally broken (no cursor → no mouseleave event). If heatmap shows users leaving on mobile, the answer is not an exit modal.
166 - **Progress-bar velocity**: NIH RCT shows slow-to-fast progress bars nearly double form abandonment. If your heatmap shows form-step drop-off, audit progress bar acceleration before redesigning fields.
167- **`_shared/benchmarks/patterns.json`** — when heatmap data confirms a problem (e.g., low scroll past 30%, CTA clicks dominated by a single variant), match to a `pattern_id` and quote the evidence-backed lift range for the fix. Most relevant categories: `cta`, `navigation`, `above_fold`.
168 

Discussion

Alternatives

B0rk's UI/UX SKILLResearch, design, implement, audit, and validate UI/UX in web, mobile, and developer tools. Use for frontend coding, interface design, redesigns, responsive layouts, design systems and tokens, component interactions, agent/chat interfaces, forms, accessibility, content design, keyboard usability, interaction state modeling, performance, and AI-generated UI quality review. Produce evidence-backed fixes, complete states, and practical verification rather than generic visual polish.Design & UI · MITMake UI/UX better of an already Created ApplicationGenerate a comprehensive, actionable development plan to enhance the existing web application.Coding · CC0-1.0UX researcherUse this agent when you need to design user research plans, analyze user-supplied data (interview transcripts, analytics, notes/transcripts from session recordings you provide), and generate actionable insights to validate design decisions and uncover user needs. Invoke when you need usability-test planning, interview/survey design, analytics interpretation, persona development, or competitive UX benchmarking to inform product strategy. Specifically:\\n\\n<example>\\nContext: A product team is launching a new feature and needs a research plan to validate it with real users before full release.\\nuser: "We've built a new checkout flow, but we want to test it with real users first to catch any issues. Can you help us plan usability testing?"\\nassistant: "I'll design a comprehensive usability test plan including task flows, screener criteria for recruiting participants, a moderation/observation guide, and an analysis framework for the sessions your team runs. Once you share session notes or transcripts, I'll analyze drop-off points and synthesize findings into specific design recommendations to improve conversion and reduce friction."\\n<commentary>\\nInvoke ux-researcher when you need a rigorous usability-test protocol and the analysis framework to translate results into design recommendations. This agent designs the research and analyzes data the team gathers or provides — it does not recruit participants or run live sessions itself.\\n</commentary>\\n</example>\\n\\n<example>\\nContext: A product manager is exploring a new market segment and needs to understand user needs and behaviors before defining requirements.\\nuser: "We want to expand into a new user segment, but we don't know their pain points or workflows. How can we understand what they need?"\\nassistant: "I'll design a mixed-methods research plan: a discussion guide and screener for target-user interviews, an in-context observation protocol, and a survey instrument to validate findings across a broader population. Once you provide interview transcripts, survey responses, or field notes, I'll synthesize results into personas, journey maps, and opportunity areas to guide your product roadmap."\\n<commentary>\\nUse ux-researcher for exploratory research design when you need instruments and a synthesis framework to understand user needs, motivations, and behaviors in unfamiliar segments. The agent designs the protocols and analyzes the data you supply.\\n</commentary>\\n</example>\\n\\n<example>\\nContext: Analytics show a 40% drop-off in your user funnel but the team doesn't understand why users are leaving.\\nuser: "Our analytics show users are abandoning the onboarding flow at the same step. What's causing this and how do we fix it?"\\nassistant: "I'll analyze the behavioral analytics export you provide to map the exact moment and context of drop-offs, design a targeted interview guide for users who abandoned at that step, review publicly available competitor onboarding flows for comparison, and synthesize findings into design recommendations. I'll prioritize the highest-impact changes and design iterations to test next."\\n<commentary>\\nInvoke ux-researcher when quantitative metrics show a problem but you need qualitative understanding of the root cause. This agent combines analytics interpretation (from data you provide) with research-design expertise to translate metrics into actionable insights.\\n</commentary>\\n</example>Design & UI · MITUX researcher designerUX research and design toolkit for Senior UX Designer/Researcher including data-driven persona generation, journey mapping, usability testing frameworks, and research synthesis. Use for user research, persona creation, journey mapping, and design validation.Design & UI · MIT