---
name: sales-uxarmy
description: "UXArmy (uxarmy.com) platform help — a self-serve user-research and usability-testing suite: unmoderated tests with screen/audio recording and full-journey heatmaps, DeepDive moderated interviews / dyads / triads / focus groups, open/closed/hybrid card sorting, tree testing, surveys, and AI auto-tagging / follow-ups / sentiment. Its differentiators are an APAC/Asia-first participant panel and pooled credits charged per response by method — IA and survey responses cost a fraction of a credit while recorded tests and interviews cost many. UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP; data leaves via export or the Slack / Figma / Google Sheets integrations. Use when running a card sort or tree test to fix navigation, recruiting testers in Asia-Pacific markets, estimating how many credits a study will burn, hitting the free plan's credit ceiling, or choosing between UXArmy and UXtweak / Lyssna / Maze. Do NOT use for the research-tool landscape or validate-before-building (use /sales-idea-validation)."
argument-hint: "[describe what you need help with in UXArmy]"
license: MIT
version: 1.0.0
tags: [sales, pre-launch, platform]
---

# UXArmy Platform Help

UXArmy (uxarmy.com) is a **self-serve user-research and usability-testing suite** — the tool you reach
for when you have *a design, prototype, or live site* and want real users to test it. It runs the full
battery in one seat: **unmoderated testing** (screen + audio recording, full-journey heatmaps across
multiple screens, AI summaries, auto-transcription in 25+ languages, Figma prototype testing),
**DeepDive® moderated research** (1:1 interviews, dyads, triads, focus groups; long sessions with
multi-screen sharing and live multi-language transcription), **card sorting** (open / closed / hybrid
with automated similarity analysis), **tree testing** (success rate, destination matrix, pietree), and
**surveys** — plus AI auto-tagging, follow-up question generation, and sentiment analysis. Its peers
are **UXtweak, Lyssna, Maze, Optimal Workshop**; its two real edges are an **APAC/Asia-first panel**
and a **pooled-credit price model** where the IA methods are nearly free.

**Three things to say almost every time:**
- **Price the study in credits, not in dollars.** UXArmy charges **per response, by method** — the
  spread is enormous (a recorded usability response costs hundreds of times a card-sort response). The
  plan's monthly credit count means nothing until you multiply it by the method. Do this math before
  recommending a plan.
- **UXArmy tests a *built thing*, and a task-success metric is not validated demand.** A clean tree test
  says the design *works*, not that strangers will *pay*. If the user is still deciding whether to
  build, that go/no-go belongs to a real behavior test — route to `/sales-idea-validation`.
- **UXArmy is UI-only.** **No public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP** — "pipe results into my warehouse"
  is an export or one of the few native integrations (Slack, Figma, Google Sheets), not REST.

## Step 1 — Gather context

If `references/learnings.md` exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge.

Ask only what you can't infer:

1. **What do you want from UXArmy?**
   - A) **Pick a study type** — unmoderated test vs DeepDive moderated vs card sort vs tree test vs survey
   - B) **Budget a study** — how many credits will this burn, which plan do I need, is the free plan enough
   - C) **Recruit participants** — the APAC/EMEA/Americas panel (paid add-on) vs bringing your own testers
   - D) **Read results** — heatmaps, similarity analysis (card sort), destination matrix / pietree (tree test), AI summaries
   - E) **Get data out** — export or Slack / Figma / Google Sheets (no API — manual/native only)
   - F) **Choose** — UXArmy vs UXtweak / Lyssna / Maze / Optimal Workshop
2. **Which markets are your users in?** UXArmy's panel is deepest in Asia-Pacific — that's the main reason
   to pick it over its peers, and the main reason to skip it if your users are elsewhere.
3. **Are you testing something you've already built/designed, or still deciding whether to build?** The
   second is an idea-validation question, not a usability question — flag it in Step 2.

Skip-ahead: if the user's prompt already names the study type and their question is specific, go to Step 3.

## Step 2 — Route or answer directly

| If the user's question is about… | Route to |
|---|---|
| Comparing research/usability/validator tools across the market, or the validate-before-building **method** | `/sales-idea-validation {question}` |
| An **API / webhook / MCP-native** research pipeline (UXArmy has none) | `/sales-userintuition {question}` |
| Running a **real behavior** demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale) instead of a usability test | `/sales-idea-validation` or `/sales-funnel` `{question}` |
| Analyzing **existing** NPS/CSAT/VoC/review feedback (post-launch, not new tests) | `/sales-customer-feedback {question}` |

When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: `/sales-idea-validation {original question}`"

Otherwise, answer UXArmy-specific questions using Step 3.

## Step 3 — UXArmy platform reference

**Read `references/platform-guide.md`** for the full reference — the study-type catalog (what each tool
measures and how to read its output), the module/automation-surface table (what's exportable vs UI-only),
best-effort pricing with the **per-method credit table** and worked study budgets, the panel's regional
coverage, the Study → Task → Participant → Response data model, and the no-API data-out playbook. UXArmy
has **no public API**, so there is no API-reference file.

Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.

## Step 4 — Actionable guidance

- **Always convert the study into credits before naming a plan.** Take the method × the response count
  and multiply by the per-method credit cost from `references/platform-guide.md`, then compare that
  number to the plan's monthly credits. The methods are priced *radically* differently — recorded
  usability responses and moderated interviews are the expensive ones, while card sorting, tree testing,
  and surveys cost a small fraction of a credit each, so a plan that funds only a couple of recorded
  sessions funds a *very* large IA study. Never recommend a tier without showing this math. **Every time
  you quote a credit cost or a plan price in that math, label the figures best-effort in the same breath
  and point to uxarmy.com/pricing** — these numbers move, and a bare figure reads as verified fact.
- **Lead with the panel-geography question whenever tool choice comes up.** UXArmy's distinguishing
  asset is **Asia-Pacific panel depth** (20+ APAC countries), with lighter EMEA and Americas coverage.
  If the user's target users are in APAC, say that's the reason to pick it over UXtweak/Lyssna/Maze; if
  they're in North America or Europe, say plainly that the peers' panels are larger there and the
  APAC edge doesn't apply to them.
- **State that the panel is a separate paid add-on, not included in the plan.** Every tier's credits
  cover *responses*, not *recruitment* — panel access is purchased on top (and on-demand recruitment is
  an Organization-tier add-on). Bringing your own testers avoids that cost entirely, so for a founder
  testing with existing users, self-recruiting is the cheap path. Say this before they budget.
- **Say the caveat: a usability metric is not demand.** Whatever the user asks, make explicit that
  UXArmy measures whether a *built* design works (task success, findability, first-click accuracy) — it
  does **not** prove strangers will **pay**. If they're still deciding whether to build, keep the
  usability findings but take the go/no-go from a real behavior test via `/sales-idea-validation`.
- **Flag it as UI-only when any automation or export comes up.** UXArmy has **no public API, webhooks,
  Zapier, or MCP** (verify against current docs — it may change). Automation asks resolve to export or
  the native **Slack / Figma / Google Sheets** integrations. Warn that reviewers report **export
  coverage is uneven by study type** (notably that some per-task metrics like time-on-task aren't
  exportable), so tell them to verify the export contains their metric *before* running the full study.
  If they need a live programmatic pipeline, route to `/sales-userintuition`.
- **Present all pricing as best-effort and point to uxarmy.com/pricing.** Plan prices, monthly credit
  allowances, and the per-method credit costs all move, and panel/recruitment pricing is quote-based.
  State any figure as best-effort and name the pricing page.
- **Match the IA method to the question.** Use **card sorting** when the question is how users would *group and name* content (open = let them create/label categories to discover a structure; closed = sort into *your* categories to validate them; hybrid = both); use **tree testing** when the structure already exists and the question is whether users can *find* things in it (findability + first-click path, no visual design). Run the card sort to **design** the tree, then the tree test to **validate** it — and read them via UXArmy's automated **similarity analysis** and the **destination matrix / pietree** respectively. Don't run a tree test to judge visuals.
- **Name the participant count explicitly, and say why, whenever you size or budget a study.** Don't let
  a number appear only as an input to the credit math — state the target and its reasoning. For
  qualitative usability (unmoderated task tests, DeepDive moderated), **~5 participants per user group**
  surfaces most major issues; for quantitative IA (card sort / tree test), aim **much higher — roughly
  30+** — because the similarity matrix and findability score need the volume to be statistically
  stable, and a card sort with 5 people is noise. **Always flag these as rules-of-thumb, not
  guarantees.** The credit model makes that split cheap: the study type needing 30+ people is the one
  costing a fraction of a credit per response.
- **Check RTL/language support before recommending it for a market.** Transcription covers 25+
  languages, but reviewers report **Arabic and Hebrew are not supported** — for MENA/RTL research,
  verify current support first and be ready to name a different tool.

If you discover a gotcha or tip not in `references/learnings.md`, append it there with today's date.

## Gotchas

*Best-effort from research (2026-07) — pricing, the per-method credit costs, plan gates, panel coverage, and the (absent) API/export surface move; verify at uxarmy.com.*

- **The credit cost per response varies by method by orders of magnitude.** A recorded usability response and a moderated-interview response are the expensive ones; card sorting, tree testing, and surveys cost a tiny fraction of a credit each. Reading "N monthly credits" as "N responses" will be wrong by ~100× in either direction. Always multiply by the method — the table is in `references/platform-guide.md`.
- **The free plan is unusually generous *for IA and surveys*, and tiny for recorded tests.** Free includes access to all tools, unlimited active studies, unlimited storage, unlimited transcription, unlimited test length, and all AI features — but its monthly credits fund only a couple of recorded usability responses. Don't dismiss the free tier for a card sort; don't trust it for video research.
- **The participant panel is a paid add-on, not part of the plan.** Credits buy responses, not recruitment. Panel access is purchased separately (Starter+), and on-demand recruitment / end-to-end research assistance are Organization-tier add-ons. Self-recruiting your own users avoids the cost.
- **Usability ≠ demand.** UXArmy proves a design *works*, not that anyone will *buy* — the go/no-go on building still belongs to a real behavior test (smoke test, pre-sale). Route that to `/sales-idea-validation`.
- **No API, no webhooks, no Zapier, no MCP.** UXArmy is UI-only; data-out is export plus a short integration list (**Slack, Figma, Google Sheets**) that reviewers specifically call thin. Don't design a live REST pipeline around it — route pipeline needs to `/sales-userintuition`.
- **Export coverage is uneven and some metrics don't come out.** Reviewers report not being able to see time-per-task or export certain data to a spreadsheet. Verify your specific metric survives export *before* you spend credits on the full study.
- **Arabic and Hebrew (RTL) are reported unsupported.** Despite 25+ transcription languages, the panel's APAC/EMEA reach doesn't extend to RTL scripts — check before promising a MENA study.
- **Respondent personal-info collection is reported as mandatory and not switchable off.** If your study has a data-minimization or privacy constraint, confirm what's collected before recruiting.
- **Reviewers report a dated UI, occasional lag, a limited mobile app, and no test preview.** Expect to send a study without a full dry-run preview — pilot with one internal tester first to catch mistakes before they cost credits.

## Related skills

- `/sales-uxtweak` — The closest **all-in-one usability + IA suite** peer (same card sort / tree test / first-click / five-second / prototype battery) on a **130-country panel** — route here to compare; UXtweak's panel carries a minimum spend where UXArmy sells pooled credits, and UXArmy's panel is the APAC-deeper one. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxtweak -a claude-code`
- `/sales-lyssna` — The ex-UsabilityHub **usability + IA suite** with a large global panel and a seat-generous free plan — route here when panel size in North America / Europe matters more than UXArmy's APAC depth. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-lyssna -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userfeel` — The **multilingual/international** usability peer (40+ languages, 40+ countries) — route here when the study spans many languages generally rather than Asia-Pacific specifically, or when UXArmy's missing RTL support is the blocker. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userfeel -a claude-code`
- `/sales-useberry` — The **prototype-first** usability peer (deep Figma/Sketch/ProtoPie import) with **no panel of its own** (recruits via Prolific) — route here when prototype-flow depth matters more than bringing a panel. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-useberry -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userbrain` — The **narrow, cheaper** peer: only task-based think-aloud video, no IA battery — route here when the user just wants to watch real people use a built thing. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code`
- `/sales-idea-validation` — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method plus the full research/usability/validator tool landscape (use this to actually decide build-or-not; a passing usability test is not demand). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-idea-validation -a claude-code`
- `/sales-userintuition` — The API/webhook/MCP-native real-human interview peer — the pick when you need a programmatic research pipeline UXArmy can't offer. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -a claude-code`
- `/sales-customer-feedback` — Real-customer NPS/CSAT/VoC strategy across tools (use to analyze *existing* feedback; UXArmy proactively runs new tests). Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-customer-feedback -a claude-code`
- `/sales-funnel` — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page that turns a design hypothesis into a real demand test. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-funnel -a claude-code`
- `/sales-do` — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code`

## Examples

### Example 1: "Nobody can find our pricing page in the nav — and I'm broke"
**User says**: "Our menu is a mess and users miss half of it. I'm a solo founder on the free plan — can I actually test this in UXArmy without paying?"
**Skill does**: Recommends a **tree test** for nav findability (success rate, directness, first-click path), preceded by an **open card sort** if the labels themselves are in doubt. Does the credit math out loud: tree-test and card-sort responses cost a **fraction of a credit each**, so the free plan's monthly credits fund far more than the ~30+ participants needed for a stable result — this is exactly where the free tier is genuinely enough. Notes the panel is a **separate paid add-on**, so self-recruiting keeps it free. Flags figures as best-effort against uxarmy.com/pricing, and adds that a clean tree test proves the nav works, not that the offer sells.
**Result**: The founder runs a properly-powered tree test on the free plan with self-recruited testers.

### Example 2: "How do I get UXArmy results into our warehouse automatically?" (developer/automation)
**User says**: "I want every completed study's results to flow into our data warehouse and a dashboard."
**Skill does**: States plainly that **UXArmy is UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP** — there is no automated REST path. Data-out is **export** plus a short native list (**Slack** notifications, **Figma** prototype import, **Google Sheets** for tabular results); Sheets is the closest thing to a pipeline, so a scheduled job over that sheet is the realistic warehouse leg. Warns that reviewers report **uneven export coverage** (time-on-task reportedly doesn't come out) and to pilot one participant's export before spending credits. Routes a hard programmatic requirement to `/sales-userintuition`, naming the trade-off.
**Result**: The user stops hunting for an API that doesn't exist and wires up Sheets + a scheduled export.

### Example 3: "Is UXArmy the right pick, or should I use Maze?"
**User says**: "We're launching in Indonesia and Vietnam. Choosing between UXArmy, Maze, and Lyssna."
**Skill does**: Leads with panel geography: **Asia-Pacific depth is why UXArmy exists** — 20+ APAC countries including Indonesia and Vietnam, where the peers thin out — so it's the recommendation here. Names the trade-offs honestly: peers are stronger in North America/Europe, reviewers call the UI dated and the integration list thin (Slack/Figma/Google Sheets, no API), and the **panel is a paid add-on**. Prices the study in credits per method rather than quoting a plan, flagging every figure as best-effort.
**Result**: The team picks UXArmy for the APAC panel with clear eyes on the UI and export limits.

## Troubleshooting

### "The plan says 99 credits — how many tests is that?"
**Symptom**: The user reads the monthly credit count as a response count and budgets wrong.
**Cause**: UXArmy charges credits **per response, per method**, and the methods differ by orders of magnitude — recorded usability responses and moderated interviews are expensive; card sorting, tree testing, and surveys cost a small fraction of a credit each. Figma tests without recording sit between, far below a recorded session.
**Solution**: Multiply method × response count using the per-method credit table in `references/platform-guide.md` before picking a tier. The same balance buys either a handful of recorded sessions or a very large IA study — which is why the free tier is fine for a card sort and useless for video research. Credits are **pooled** across methods and Starter+ adds pay-as-you-go top-ups, so a mixed study draws from one balance. Confirm current costs at uxarmy.com/pricing.

### "I ran the study but can't get the numbers I need out"
**Symptom**: Results look right in the UI but the export is missing metrics, or there's no way to automate the handoff.
**Cause**: UXArmy is **UI-only** — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP — and reviewers report export coverage is uneven by study type (notably time-per-task and some spreadsheet exports).
**Solution**: Use **Google Sheets** for tabular results, **Slack** for notifications, and manual export for the rest. Critically: run a **one-participant pilot and export it** before spending credits on the full study, so a missing metric surfaces while it's cheap. If a live programmatic pipeline is a requirement, route to `/sales-userintuition` (REST API + HMAC-signed webhooks + MCP server).

### "Which study type do I use — card sort or tree test?"
**Symptom**: The user isn't sure whether to test *categories/labels* or *navigation findability*.
**Cause**: The two answer different IA questions and are easy to confuse.
**Solution**: Use **card sorting** when the question is how users would *group and name* content (open = let them create/label categories; closed = sort into *your* categories to validate them; hybrid = both). Use **tree testing** when the structure exists and the question is whether users can **find** an item in it (findability + first-click path, no visual design). Run the card sort to *design* the tree, then the tree test to *validate* it. Read the card sort via UXArmy's automated **similarity analysis**, the tree test via the **destination matrix** and **pietree**. Both cost a fraction of a credit per response, so power them properly (~30+ participants).