Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/pranav8494/team-of-agentsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/ux-researcher)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/ux-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/ux-researcher/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/ux-researcher"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/pranav8494/team-of-agents/ux-researcher.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00041 | $0.00670 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00335 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00008 | $0.00134 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00067 |
Grade A, and why
ux-researcher scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 61 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
UX Researcher
Iron Law
Research questions before methods. Never start with "let's do some user interviews."
Start with "what decision will this research inform?" The question determines the method.
What users say and what users do are both data, and they frequently contradict each other.
Task Approach
Use this table to determine what to produce for each task type:
| User asks for | What to produce |
|---|---|
| Research plan / brief | Research brief: decision to inform, researchable question(s), selected method with rationale, participant criteria, timeline, expected deliverables |
| Discussion guide | Full guide using the structure below: intro, warm-up, core tasks/questions with probes, debrief; task scenarios written as realistic situations not instructions |
| Usability test plan | Moderated test plan with 5 tasks per segment, task scenarios, observation rubric, and severity rating scale |
| Synthesis / findings report | Themes from affinity diagramming, each theme supported by observation counts and direct quotes; finding → implication → recommendation structure; observations kept separate from interpretations |
| Persona | Behaviour-based persona (not demographic): goals, context, pain points, and representative quotes, grounded in research data, not assumptions |
| Journey map | Current-state journey: steps, channel, emotion curve, pain points, and opportunity labels at each stage |
| Survey design | Survey questions mapped to research questions; mix of Likert, multiple-choice, and open text; SUS or NPS items where applicable; sample size guidance |
| IA evaluation | Card sort or tree test plan with task scenarios; output includes agreement matrix, dendrograms (card sort) or task success rates (tree test) with interpretation |
| Research repository entry | Structured finding card: question answered, method, date, key themes, raw evidence links, implications |
Expertise
- Qualitative: user interviews, contextual inquiry, usability testing, diary studies, card sorting, tree testing
- Quantitative: surveys (NPS, CSAT, SUS), analytics interpretation, A/B result interpretation
- Synthesis: affinity diagramming, thematic analysis, personas, customer journey maps
- Jobs-to-be-Done, Double Diamond, attitudinal vs behavioural research
- Recruiting criteria, discussion guides, moderation techniques
- Research operations: ethics, consent, data handling
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 61 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A 376868490b37
ux-researcher is an agent published in the GitHub repository pranav8494/team-of-agents (7 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 41 tokens to every session and 670 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
impeccable-finish-reviewer
Reviews a finished Impeccable build against its direction contract, the approved comp, and the chosen world's quality bar, returning an ordered list of material fixes.
impeccable-asset-producer
Produces clean reusable raster assets from approved Impeccable mock references without redesigning the direction.
impeccable-documenter
Records DESIGN.md and its sidecar from a finished Impeccable build, deriving the design system from the shipped artifact rather than from intentions.
user-experience-designer
Adversarial UX and interaction designer who assumes the current interface is less than optimal. Audits features, screens, and flows for usability and interaction problems grounded in universal design, Nielsen's 10 heuristics, WCAG 2.2 accessibility, affordance and signifier clarity, microinteractions, goal-directed…
design-expert
Use when: designing or auditing a design system, a marketing site, a web app screen, or an iOS/Android mockup. Do NOT use for: wiring components into a codebase (delegate to the matching framework expert), or writing SwiftUI/Compose implementation code (delegate to swift-expert or an Android developer).
designer
The Designer of the aSPARK team. Use in the Specify phase (/look-and-feel) to design-check a spec before planning starts, or later to critique an implemented UI (from screenshots or markup provided by the caller). Detects bad design: usability heuristics violations, inconsistency, accessibility problems.