adversarial-ux-test

Imported from nousresearch/hermes-agent (optional-skills/dogfood/adversarial-ux-test/SKILL.md). Install upstream with npx skills add nousresearch/hermes-agent --skill adversarial-ux-test. Copyright stays with the author (MIT).

Adversarial UX Test

Roleplay the worst-case user for your product — the person who hates technology, doesn't want your software, and will find every reason to complain. Then filter their feedback through a pragmatism layer to separate real UX problems from "I hate computers" noise.

Think of it as an automated "mom test" — but angry.

Why This Works

Most QA finds bugs. This finds friction. A technically correct app can still be unusable for real humans. The adversarial persona catches:

• Confusing terminology that makes sense to developers but not users
• Too many steps to accomplish basic tasks
• Missing onboarding or "aha moments"
• Accessibility issues (font size, contrast, click targets)
• Cold-start problems (empty states, no demo content)
• Paywall/signup friction that kills conversion

The pragmatism filter (Phase 3) is what makes this useful instead of just entertaining. Without it, you'd add a "print this page" button to every screen because Grandpa can't figure out PDFs.

How to Use

Tell the agent:

"Run an adversarial UX test on [URL]"
"Be a grumpy [persona type] and test [app name]"
"Do an asshole user test on my staging site"

You can provide a persona or let the agent generate one based on your product's target audience.

Step 1: Define the Persona

If no persona is provided, generate one by answering:

1. Who is the HARDEST user for this product? (age 50+, non-technical role, decades of experience doing it "the old way")
2. What is their tech comfort level? (the lower the better — WhatsApp-only, paper notebooks, wife set up their email)
3. What is the ONE thing they need to accomplish? (their core job, not your feature list)
4. What would make them give up? (too many clicks, jargon, slow, confusing)
5. How do they talk when frustrated? (blunt, sweary, dismissive, sighing)

Good Persona Example

"Big Mick" McAllister — 58-year-old S&C coach. Uses WhatsApp and that's it. His "spreadsheet" is a paper notebook. "If I can't figure it out in 10 seconds I'm going back to my notebook." Needs to log session results for 25 players. Hates small text, jargon, and passwords.

Bad Persona Example

"A user who doesn't like the app" — too vague, no constraints, no voice.

The persona must be specific enough to stay in character for 20 minutes of testing.

Step 2: Become the Asshole (Browse as the Persona)

1. Read any available project docs for app context and URLs

2. Fully inhabit the persona — their frustrations, limitations, goals

3. Navigate to the app using browser tools

4. Attempt the persona's ACTUAL TASKS (not a feature tour):

   • Can they do what they came to do?
   • How many clicks/screens to accomplish it?
   • What confuses them?
   • What makes them angry?
   • Where do they get lost?
   • What would make them give up and go back to their old way?

5. Test these friction categories:

   • First impression — would they even bother past the landing page?
   • Core workflow — the ONE thing they need to do most often
   • Error recovery — what happens when they do something wrong?
   • Readability — text size, contrast, information density
   • Speed — does it feel faster than their current method?
   • Terminology — any jargon they wouldn't understand?
   • Navigation — can they find their way back? do they know where they are?

6. Take screenshots of every pain point

7. Check browser console for JS errors on every page

Step 3: The Rant (Write Feedback in Character)

Write the feedback AS THE PERSONA — in their voice, with their frustrations. This is not a bug report. This is a real human venting.

[PERSONA NAME]'s Review of [PRODUCT]

Overall: [Would they keep using it? Yes/No/Maybe with conditions]

THE GOOD (grudging admission):
- [things even they have to admit work]

THE BAD (legitimate UX issues):
- [real problems that would stop them from using the product]

THE UGLY (showstoppers):
- [things that would make them uninstall/cancel immediately]

SPECIFIC COMPLAINTS:
1. [Page/feature]: "[quote in persona voice]" — [what happened, expected]
2. ...

VERDICT: "[one-line persona quote summarizing their experience]"

Step 4: The Pragmatism Filter (Critical — Do Not Skip)

Step OUT of the persona. Evaluate each complaint as a product person:

• RED: REAL UX BUG — Any user would have this problem, not just grumpy ones. Fix it.
• YELLOW: VALID BUT LOW PRIORITY — Real issue but only for extreme users. Note it.
• WHITE: PERSONA NOISE — "I hate computers" talking, not a product problem. Skip it.
• GREEN: FEATURE REQUEST — Good idea hidden in the complaint. Consider it.

Filter Criteria

1. Would a 35-year-old competent-but-busy user have the same complaint? → RED
2. Is this a genuine accessibility issue (font size, contrast, click targets)? → RED
3. Is this "I want it to work like paper" resistance to digital? → WHITE
4. Is this a real workflow inefficiency the persona stumbled on? → YELLOW or RED
5. Would fixing this add complexity for the 80% who are fine? → WHITE
6. Does the complaint reveal a missing onboarding moment? → GREEN

This filter is MANDATORY. Never ship raw persona complaints as tickets.

Step 5: Create Tickets

For RED and GREEN items only:

• Clear, actionable title
• Include the persona's verbatim quote (entertaining + memorable)
• The real UX issue underneath (objective)
• A suggested fix (actionable)
• Tag/label: "ux-review"

For YELLOW items: one catch-all ticket with all notes.

WHITE items appear in the report only. No tickets.

Max 10 tickets per session — focus on the worst issues.

Step 6: Report

Deliver:

1. The persona rant (Step 3) — entertaining and visceral
2. The filtered assessment (Step 4) — pragmatic and actionable
3. Tickets created (Step 5) — with links
4. Screenshots of key issues

Tips

• One persona per session. Don't mix perspectives.
• Stay in character during Steps 2-3. Break character only at Step 4.
• Test the CORE WORKFLOW first. Don't get distracted by settings pages.
• Empty states are gold. New user experience reveals the most friction.
• The best findings are RED items the persona found accidentally while trying to do something else.
• If the persona has zero complaints, your persona is too tech-savvy. Make them older, less patient, more set in their ways.
• Run this before demos, launches, or after shipping a batch of features.
• Register as a NEW user when possible. Don't use pre-seeded admin accounts — the cold start experience is where most friction lives.
• Zero WHITE items is a signal, not a failure. If the pragmatism filter finds no noise, your product has real UX problems, not just a grumpy persona.
• Check known issues in project docs AFTER the test. If the persona found a bug that's already in the known issues list, that's actually the most damning finding — it means the team knew about it but never felt the user's pain.
• Subscription/paywall testing is critical. Test with expired accounts, not just active ones. The "what happens when you can't pay" experience reveals whether the product respects users or holds their data hostage.
• Count the clicks to accomplish the persona's ONE task. If it's more than 5, that's almost always a RED finding regardless of persona tech level.

Example Personas by Industry

These are starting points — customize for your specific product:

Rules

• Stay in character during Steps 2-3
• Be genuinely mean but fair — find real problems, not manufactured ones
• The pragmatism filter (Step 4) is MANDATORY
• Screenshots required for every complaint
• Max 10 tickets per session
• Test on staging/deployed app, not local dev
• One persona, one session, one report