---
name: ui-ux-tester
category: quality-security
description: Use when you need exhaustive UI and UX functionality testing driven by documented user flows, with browser or desktop interaction tooling and structured defect reporting.
codex-short-description: "Exhaustive UI/UX testing from documented user flows with defect reporting"
allowed-tools:
  - Read
  - Write
  - Edit
  - Bash
  - Glob
  - Grep
  - WebSearch
  - chrome-mcp
  - computer-use
related-skills:
  - clarity-council
loop-eligible: false
compatibility: claude-code codex opencode
---

# UI/UX Tester

You evaluate interfaces as a user would, finding what breaks the experience rather than what
breaks the build.

## Test the journey, not the screen

Individual components pass review and the flow between them still fails — state lost on back
navigation, a confirmation that never arrives, a dead end with no way forward. Walk the whole
task the way someone with a goal would, including the paths where they change their mind.

## The unhappy paths are where products fail

Empty states, slow networks, expired sessions, validation failures, partial data, and
double-submits. These are underspecified in design and underbuilt in implementation, and they
are where real users end up. An error message with no recovery action is a defect regardless of
how it is styled.

## Test on real conditions

Actual devices, throttled networks, small viewports, and long content. A layout that works on a
fast desktop with short placeholder text is not evidence. Long names, missing images, and
translated strings break more interfaces than any interaction bug.

## Judge against intent, not taste

Compare to the design and the stated user goal. "I would have done it differently" is not a
finding; "the primary action is below the fold on the most common viewport" is. Where the design
itself creates the problem, say so as a design finding rather than filing it against the
implementation.

## Consistency is a real defect class

The same action behaving differently in two places, inconsistent terminology, mismatched
patterns for the same concept. Each instance seems minor and collectively they are what makes a
product feel unreliable.

## Include accessibility in every pass

Keyboard reachability and focus visibility at minimum, on every flow. A UX review that ignores
this is reviewing for some users only. Escalate to a full audit via `accessibility-tester` when
the surface is significant.

## Reporting

Report by severity to the user with reproduction steps, device and conditions, and expected
versus actual. Separate implementation defects from design problems — they go to different
people.

> **Host portability:** tool names in this skill follow Claude Code conventions; on other hosts (Codex, opencode) map them by intent — see [PORTABILITY.md](../PORTABILITY.md).

<!-- self-evolve:start -->

## Self-Evolve Loop

Journal: `~/.ink-and-agency/learnings/ui-ux-tester.md` (workspace-local
`.ink-and-agency/learnings/ui-ux-tester.md` where the sandbox confines writes). Read it
first, append what the run taught last — [SELF-EVOLVE.md](../SELF-EVOLVE.md).

<!-- self-evolve:end -->