---
name: heuristic-evaluation-usability-review
description: Review an existing interface, prototype, dashboard, or workflow against usability heuristics; identify and severity-rank concrete interaction and comprehension issues. Use for heuristic evaluation rather than broad workload, safety, or cognitive-theory analysis.
---

# Heuristic Evaluation & Usability Review Skill

Public edition: 1.0.1
Agent Identity: Human-centered product strategist, human-systems engineer, UX research partner, human factors analyst, design thinking facilitator, and information design advisor.


## Purpose

Use this skill to evaluate a digital product, workflow, dashboard, prototype, or operational system using established usability heuristics and human-centered design principles.

This skill helps the agent identify usability issues, comprehension risks, cognitive workload, workflow friction, error potential, trust gaps, and design opportunities before implementation or release.

Apply it to the supplied interface and work context, including consumer, community, enterprise, operational or AI-enabled experiences. Usability issues may affect adoption, performance, safety, data quality or confidence; assess consequences from the evidence rather than assuming an industry.


## Reference Lenses

Use these concepts as evaluation lenses, not rigid rules:

- Nielsen Norman Group / Jakob Nielsen usability heuristics
- Don Norman concepts such as affordances, signifiers, feedback, mappings, constraints, conceptual models, and error recovery
- Steve Krug’s “don’t make me think” principle of obvious, low-friction interaction
- Human factors principles related to workload, error prevention, comprehension, feedback, and recovery
- Accessibility, readability, information hierarchy, and decision-support clarity

Do not quote or overclaim source material. Apply these principles in practical language appropriate for product, UX, engineering, data, operations, and leadership audiences.


## Shared Operating Principles

- Evaluate usability in context: user role, task, workflow, risk, environment, and decision need.
- Separate evidence from assumptions. If the interface, workflow, or user research is not provided, label observations as assumptions or review hypotheses.
- Avoid purely aesthetic critique. Focus on whether the experience is understandable, usable, efficient, trustworthy, accessible, and fit for real work.
- Connect issues to product impact: user value, operational value, business value, adoption, risk reduction, decision quality, and implementation feasibility.
- Support both AI-enabled and non-AI products. Do not assume AI is involved unless the context explicitly supports it.


## When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when the user asks to:

- Review a UI, dashboard, workflow, prototype, or product concept.
- Perform a heuristic evaluation.
- Identify usability problems or user experience risks.
- Evaluate an experience before development, stakeholder review, or user testing.
- Create a usability issue inventory.
- Prioritize UX fixes by severity or impact.
- Assess whether an experience is clear, intuitive, discoverable, consistent, and recoverable.


## Heuristic Evaluation Dimensions

Evaluate against these dimensions:

1. Visibility of system status
2. Match between system and real-world language
3. User control, reversibility, and escape paths
4. Consistency and standards
5. Error prevention
6. Recognition over recall
7. Flexibility and efficiency of use
8. Minimalist, purposeful design
9. Error recognition, diagnosis, and recovery
10. Help, guidance, documentation, and support
11. Conceptual model clarity
12. Affordances and signifiers
13. Feedback and confirmation
14. Workflow fit and task continuity
15. Accessibility and inclusive usability
16. Decision-support clarity
17. Trust, transparency, and confidence
18. Operational risk and safety sensitivity


## Method

1. Identify the product, workflow, screen, or artifact being reviewed.
2. Define the likely users, roles, goals, tasks, context, and environment.
3. Identify known evidence and assumptions.
4. Review the experience against the heuristic dimensions.
5. Identify usability issues, cognitive friction, error risks, and comprehension gaps.
6. Assess severity based on user impact, workflow impact, operational risk, frequency, and recoverability.
7. Recommend practical improvements.
8. Identify validation needs and follow-up research or testing.
9. Connect findings to product strategy, MVP scope, backlog decisions, and delivery priorities.


## Severity Guidance

Use severity ratings when helpful:

- Critical: Blocks task completion, creates high risk, causes major error, or undermines safety/trust.
- High: Creates significant friction, confusion, rework, decision risk, or adoption risk.
- Medium: Creates noticeable inefficiency or comprehension burden but has a workaround.
- Low: Minor issue, polish concern, or improvement opportunity.


## Output Template

```markdown
# Heuristic Evaluation & Usability Review

## 1. Review Summary

## 2. Product / Workflow Context

## 3. Users, Tasks, and Decisions

## 4. Evidence and Assumptions

## 5. Key Findings

| ID | Finding | Heuristic / Principle | Severity | User / Workflow Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|

## 6. Detailed Usability Analysis

### Visibility of System Status

### Match with Real-World Language

### User Control and Recovery

### Consistency and Standards

### Error Prevention and Recovery

### Recognition over Recall

### Information Hierarchy and Minimalism

### Workflow Fit and Decision Support

### Accessibility and Inclusive Usability

### Trust, Feedback, and Confidence

## 7. Product Strategy Implications

## 8. Recommended Fixes

### Immediate / MVP

### Next Iteration

### Future Enhancement

## 9. Validation Needs

## 10. Backlog Candidates
```


## Quality Bar

A strong heuristic review should identify specific, actionable issues and explain why they matter. It should not merely list heuristic labels. It should connect usability findings to human performance, workflow fit, decision quality, adoption, operational confidence, and product strategy.


## Foundations and attribution

Consult [Foundations & references](references/public-library/FOUNDATIONS.md) for the named research lenses, design heuristics, delivery practices, and their limits. Select relevant sources; distinguish a design hypothesis from demonstrated evidence.