--- name: sales-uxia description: "Uxia (uxia.app) platform help — an AI/synthetic-tester usability-testing tool: AI \"testers\" modeled on demographic/behavioral profiles explore a design, prototype, or live URL and surface UX friction in minutes, returning transcripts, heatmaps, SUS/SUPR-Q scores, accessibility checks, and reports across five test types. Figma/Jira/Notion/Linear integrations plus a marketed-but-undocumented MCP link to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini; no public REST API. Use when setting up an AI user test, testing a Figma prototype or live site with synthetic testers, reading a SUS/SUPR-Q or accessibility result, wondering how realistic AI testers are or whether they replace real users, hitting the free-trial credit limit, or exporting results without an API. Do NOT use for comparing usability/research/validator tools or the validate-before-building method (use /sales-idea-validation), real-human usability testing (use /sales-userbrain or /sales-uxtweak), or synthetic-persona interviews (use /sales-syntheticusers)." argument-hint: "[describe what you need help with in Uxia]" license: MIT version: 1.0.1 tags: [sales, pre-launch, platform] --- # Uxia Platform Help Uxia (uxia.app) is an **AI / synthetic-tester usability-testing tool** — the **synthetic counterpart** to the real-human usability tools (Userbrain, UXtweak). Instead of recruiting people, Uxia runs **AI "testers"** (LLM agents modeled on **demographic + behavioral profiles** + any uploaded persona docs) that explore your **design, prototype, or live URL**, "think aloud," and surface **UX friction** in ~5 min → **transcripts, heatmaps, SUS / SUPR-Q usability scores, accessibility checks, and actionable reports** across five test types: **AI User Test**, **AI Live Test** (paste a live URL), **AI User Research**, **Accessibility Test**, and a **Human Test** (real humans — enterprise/custom-plan only). **Two things to say almost every time (both are Step 4 imperatives):** - **Synthetic ≠ real ≠ demand.** AI testers are great for **early iteration** (stress-test flows 20× a sprint) but **don't replace real humans** (the founder says so), and a smooth run does **not** prove anyone will **pay** — validate the final version with real testers (`/sales-userbrain`, `/sales-uxtweak`) and take a build-or-not go/no-go to a **real behavior test** (`/sales-idea-validation`). - **No public REST API — only a marketed-but-undocumented MCP link** (Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini; no docs/ endpoints/schemas). Any "pipe results into my CRM/warehouse/Slack" ask is **manual export** or the MCP link — **discover MCP tools at runtime, don't invent endpoints**; for a documented pipeline route to `/sales-userintuition` (or `/sales-syntheticusers` / `/sales-ditto`). ## 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 Uxia?** - A) **Set up a test** — a test type (AI User Test / Live Test / User Research / Accessibility), tasks, Figma prototype or live URL - B) **Configure testers** — define an audience (demographics/tech literacy), upload persona docs, set tester count - C) **Read results** — transcripts, heatmaps, SUS/SUPR-Q scores, the report - D) **Judge validity** — how realistic the synthetic testers are, whether they replace real users - E) **Get data out / automate** — export a report or wire up the MCP link (no REST API) - F) **Choose** — Uxia (synthetic) vs Userbrain/UXtweak (real humans) vs Synthetic Users/Ditto (synthetic *interviews*) 2. **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 task and their question is specific, go to Step 3. ## Step 2 — Route or answer directly | If the user's question is about… | Route to | |---|---| | **Real-human** think-aloud usability testing (Uxia's testers are synthetic) | `/sales-userbrain {question}` | | **Card sorting / tree testing / first-click** IA tests, or the broad usability suite | `/sales-uxtweak {question}` | | Comparing usability/research/validator tools across the market, or the validate-before-building **method** | `/sales-idea-validation {question}` | | Synthetic **interviews/surveys** against AI personas (a different job from usability testing) | `/sales-syntheticusers` or `/sales-ditto` `{question}` | | An **API / webhook-native** research or interview pipeline (Uxia has no public API) | `/sales-userintuition {question}` | | Running a **real behavior** demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale) | `/sales-idea-validation` or `/sales-funnel` `{question}` | When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: `/sales-userbrain {original question}`" Otherwise, answer Uxia-specific questions using Step 3. ## Step 3 — Uxia platform reference **Read `references/platform-guide.md`** for the full reference — the capability/automation-surface table (five test types, each UI-only / MCP-only), the synthetic-tester data model, best-effort pricing and plan gates (free-trial credits, the flat-monthly-vs-credit ambiguity, the enterprise-gated Human Test + SSO/SCIM), the SUS/SUPR-Q frameworks, the Figma/Jira/Notion/Linear integrations, and the no-API / MCP data-out playbook. Uxia has **no public REST API**, so `references/uxia-api-reference.md` documents the (undocumented) **MCP** surface and integrations, not endpoints. Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference. ## Step 4 — Actionable guidance You no longer need the platform guide — focus on the user's specific situation. - **Say the caveat: synthetic testers are an AI opinion, not real behavior, and not demand.** Whatever the user asks, make explicit that Uxia's testers are **AI, not real people** — great for **early-stage iteration** (find friction, test flows many times cheaply) but **not a replacement for real humans** (they lack genuine intuition/emotion/randomness), and a clean synthetic run does **not** prove anyone will **pay**. Recommend the pattern the founder describes: **iterate with synthetic testers, then validate the final version with real testers** (`/sales-userbrain`, `/sales-uxtweak`). If the real question is build-or-not, take the go/no-go from a **real behavior test** via `/sales-idea-validation`. - **Flag the automation reality: no public REST API, MCP marketed but undocumented.** When automation or export comes up, state plainly there is **no public REST API and no webhooks** — the only programmatic surface is a **marketed MCP link** (ChatGPT/Claude/Gemini) with **no published docs, endpoints, or schemas**. Tell the user to **discover the MCP tools at runtime and not to invent endpoints**; "sync to HubSpot/Snowflake/Slack" is a **manual export** otherwise. For a documented pipeline, route to `/sales-userintuition` (real-human, REST API + webhooks + MCP) or `/sales-syntheticusers` / `/sales-ditto` (synthetic studies with a real API). - **Read the SUS/SUPR-Q scores as directional, not absolute.** Uxia scores designs with the standard **System Usability Scale (SUS)** and **SUPR-Q** frameworks — useful for **ranking variants against each other**, but because the raters are AI, treat the absolute number as directional and trust **relative** comparisons (variant A vs B) over a single score. Pair the score with the qualitative **transcripts and heatmaps** — the *why* the testers struggled — which is the more actionable output. - **Fix shallow feedback with better tasks, not more testers.** If the AI testers "narrate the screen" or say "looks easy," that's a **task-design** problem — write **goal-based scenario tasks with no hints** ("You want to cancel your subscription — do it"), add **open follow-up questions**, and define a **specific audience** (demographics + uploaded persona docs) so a "novice" behaves differently from an "expert." A handful of testers per audience surfaces most friction; more mostly repeat it. - **Present all pricing as best-effort and point to uxia.app.** Pricing is **inconsistent across sources** — the site shows a **Free trial (~50 credits, 1 audience, ~5 testers/test)** plus a **Custom/Enterprise** tier (unlimited, audience enrichment, **Human Test**, SSO/SCIM), while third-party listings describe a **flat monthly** Basic/Pro model ("unlimited tests, no 6-figure contracts"). Say the number is best-effort, note the **Human Test and enterprise security are custom-plan-only**, and point to **uxia.app/pricing** to confirm. 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, plan gates, the five test types, SUS/SUPR-Q scoring, and the (undocumented) MCP/integration surface move; verify at uxia.app.* - **Synthetic ≠ real ≠ demand.** Uxia's testers are **AI**, not humans. Use them for fast early iteration, but they **don't replace real users** (the founder agrees) and a clean run is **not** proof anyone will buy — validate the final design with real testers (`/sales-userbrain`/`/sales-uxtweak`) and take a build-or-not go/no-go to a real behavior test (`/sales-idea-validation`). - **It's "not just an LLM," but it's still an LLM under the hood.** Uxia layers personas, task simulation, consistency rules, and aggregation on an LLM — better than raw ChatGPT, but still can be confidently wrong and skews agreeable/generic. - **No public REST API; MCP is marketed but undocumented.** The only automation surface is an MCP link to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini with **no published endpoints/schemas** — don't invent them; discover at runtime. Everything else is **manual export**. Route a documented pipeline to `/sales-userintuition`. - **The Human Test is enterprise-only** (as are audience enrichment, SSO/SCIM) — the free/self-serve tier is **synthetic testers only**. - **Pricing is ambiguous** — marketing says "flat pricing, unlimited tests"; the site shows a **credit-limited free trial + Custom**. Treat every figure as best-effort and confirm at uxia.app/pricing. - **SUS/SUPR-Q from AI raters is directional.** The scores use real usability frameworks but the raters are synthetic — read them as a **relative** signal between variants, backed by the transcripts/heatmaps, not an absolute usability verdict. ## Related skills - `/sales-userbrain` — The **real-human** video-first usability peer — the pick to validate a final design with actual testers after iterating with Uxia's synthetic ones. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code` - `/sales-uxtweak` — The **real-human** usability + information-architecture suite (card sort, tree test, first-click) — route here for IA methods Uxia doesn't do, or to test with real users. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxtweak -a claude-code` - `/sales-syntheticusers` — The synthetic-**research** peer (AI-moderated interviews/surveys vs personas, with a real REST API) — a different job from Uxia's task-based usability testing. Its synthetic **message/creative-tester** sibling is **`/sales-evelance`** (AI personas score copy/creative/product on 12 psychology metrics) — reach for Evelance when the question is "does my message land", Uxia when it's "is my design usable". Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-syntheticusers -a claude-code` - `/sales-idea-validation` — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method + the full research/usability/validator tool landscape (use this to decide build-or-not; a passing synthetic 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 documented, programmatic research pipeline Uxia can't offer. Install: `npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -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: "Are these AI testers real enough to trust — do they replace real user testing?" **User says**: "Uxia gives me feedback in 5 minutes from AI testers. Can I just use this instead of recruiting real users?" **Skill does**: Explains Uxia's testers are **synthetic (LLM agents on demographic/behavioral profiles)**, not people — useful for **fast early iteration** but **not a replacement for real humans** (they lack real intuition/emotion/randomness, skew agreeable), and a smooth synthetic run is **not** proof anyone will pay. Recommends the founder's pattern — **iterate with synthetic testers, then validate the final version with real testers** (`/sales-userbrain`, `/sales-uxtweak`) — and, if the question is build-or-not, taking the go/no-go from a **real behavior test** via `/sales-idea-validation`. **Result**: The user keeps Uxia for cheap iteration but plans a real-human validation round before shipping. ### Example 2: "How do I get every finished Uxia test into our data warehouse / Slack automatically?" (developer/automation) **User says**: "I want each completed test's transcript and report to flow into Snowflake and post a summary to Slack." **Skill does**: States plainly Uxia has **no public REST API and no webhooks** — the only programmatic surface is a **marketed MCP link** to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini with **no published endpoints or schemas**, so you must **discover the MCP tools at runtime and not invent endpoints**; absent MCP access, data-out is **manual export** of the report/transcript to run your own ETL. If a documented live pipeline is required, routes to `/sales-userintuition` (REST API + HMAC webhooks + MCP) or `/sales-syntheticusers` / `/sales-ditto` (synthetic studies with a real API), noting those are interview/survey studies, not Uxia's task-based usability tests. **Result**: The user stops hunting for a REST API that doesn't exist and either uses the MCP link or a manual export routine. ### Example 3: "What does the free plan give me, and how does Uxia score my design?" **User says**: "I'm a solo maker. What can I do on Uxia's free tier, and what's this SUS/SUPR-Q number it shows?" **Skill does**: Gives best-effort free-tier limits (a **credit-limited free trial** — ~50 credits, 1 audience, ~5 testers/test — with the **Human Test, audience enrichment, and SSO/SCIM gated to Custom/Enterprise**), flags that **pricing is inconsistent** (flat-monthly marketing vs on-site credits) and points to **uxia.app/pricing**. Explains the scores use the standard **SUS** and **SUPR-Q** frameworks but, because the raters are **AI**, to read them as a **relative** signal between design variants (backed by the **transcripts and heatmaps**), not an absolute usability verdict. **Result**: The maker runs a free-trial test, compares two variants by relative SUS, and reads the transcripts for the *why*. ## Troubleshooting ### "The AI testers just narrate the screen / say it's easy — no real insight" **Symptom**: Synthetic testers describe the page or say "looks easy to use," with nothing actionable. **Cause**: Vague, leading, or hint-laden tasks, or an undefined audience, so the AI has nothing real to *do*. **Solution**: Write **goal-based scenario tasks with no hints** ("You want to return an item you bought last week — do it"), add **open follow-up questions** ("what did you expect?", "what was confusing?"), and define a **specific audience** (demographics + tech literacy + uploaded persona docs) so a "novice" behaves differently from an "expert." Read the **transcripts/heatmaps** for the *why*, and remember even a clean result proves the design *works in simulation*, not that anyone will pay. ### "I can't find Uxia's API to automate this" **Symptom**: The user is looking for REST endpoints, webhooks, or a Zapier app and can't find them. **Cause**: Uxia has **no public REST API and no webhooks** — the only automation surface is a **marketed but undocumented MCP** connection to Claude/ChatGPT/Gemini (no published endpoints/schemas). **Solution**: Don't invent endpoints — if you have MCP access, **discover the tools at runtime**; otherwise data-out is **manual export** of the report/transcript. For a documented, API-native pipeline, use `/sales-userintuition` or `/sales-syntheticusers` / `/sales-ditto` (synthetic studies with a real API). ### "Can I test with real humans, and why is my score different from a real test?" **Symptom**: The user wants real-human testing on Uxia, or distrusts the AI SUS/SUPR-Q number. **Cause**: Uxia's default testers are **synthetic**; the **Human Test is gated to the Custom/Enterprise plan**, and AI raters produce a **directional**, not absolute, usability score. **Solution**: On self-serve, expect **synthetic testers only** — for real humans upgrade to the enterprise **Human Test** or run a real-human tool (`/sales-userbrain`, `/sales-uxtweak`). Treat the AI SUS/SUPR-Q as a **relative** signal between variants (trust A-vs-B ranking over the absolute number), backed by transcripts.