feat: add a plugin for user research with real participants and research operations
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
Evaluación
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 18/100
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Claridad
- Necesita aclaración
- Estado de actividad
- Activo
- Stack tecnológico
- shell
- Área
- ai, developer-experience, tooling
Línea de trabajo
Do not implement yet. The issue is a gap record pending an owner interview, not a spec. Read related issues #6306 (UX plugin) and #6298 (UI plugin) and the open questions in this ticket. Done is an agreed split of research-ops vs UX, consent/tooling answers, and a later design—not a plugin in this marketplace until that interview lands.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Descripción
Problem
The user-experience plugin (#6306) plans research but does not run it: V1 writes research plans, screeners, recruitment briefs, discussion guides, test scripts and surveys, then stops. It never recruits participants or runs sessions. As a result, nothing in this marketplace recruits participants, schedules sessions, handles consent and incentives, runs or records sessions, or keeps a research repository.
Running sessions with real participants, plus research operations (ResearchOps), is this issue's scope. This issue records that gap so it is not forgotten. It is not a design; the scope needs a detailed interview with the owner before any work.
Proposed scope
- Recruiting: screeners deployed in participant tools, panel and recruiting-service access, inclusive recruiting of disabled and older participants.
- Scheduling and session logistics, including incentives.
- Consent, data handling and retention for participant data and recordings.
- Participant notice when a synthetic persona collects data from people (ICC/ESOMAR Code 2025 Art. 4(a)(ii)).
user-experienceV1 runs no sessions, so this notice belongs here. - Running sessions through installed testing and survey tools, and collecting their results.
- A research repository the
user-experienceplugin can write findings into and read prior studies from. - Routing to installed vendor plugins and MCP servers rather than wrapping vendor APIs.
Out of scope (what user-experience keeps)
- Choosing methods by research question and app stage.
- Writing the instruments: research plans, screeners, recruitment briefs, discussion guides, test scripts, surveys.
- Synthesis: coding, affinity clustering, personas, jobs-to-be-done, journeys.
- Labeling anything not from real users as an assumption to test. Synthetic-user output appears only as a labeled hypothesis, never as a finding.
- Aggregate data only: deliverables and committed files hold no participant names, contacts or identifying quotes.
- Accessibility conformance and the heuristic set, which belong to the UI plugin (
/user-interface:design, #6298). - Developer studies and developer-specific measures, which route to DX (#6302).
Evidence
Confidence labels follow the research behind the user-experience plugin. Vendor rows are what each vendor says about its own product, so they are single-publisher unless marked, and dated 2026-10-04. Naming a vendor here records that a tool exists; it is not a recommendation.
- An agent can review existing evidence (desk research, analytics, support data) without participants. HIGH. Sources: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/start-by-learning-user-needs, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/secondary-research-in-ux/
- Drafting plans, screeners, recruitment briefs and discussion guides without participants, and piloting a guide with one participant, is MEDIUM. Source: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/interview-guide/
- Treat findings not from real users as assumptions to test. HIGH. Source: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/user-research/start-by-learning-user-needs
- Synthetic users can support desk research and hypothesis generation but should complement, not replace, real participants. MEDIUM. Sources: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/synthetic-users/, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/proceedings-of-the-design-society/article/can-llmdriven-synthetic-participants-help-user-research-a-case-study-in-designing-augmented-reality-for-education/27F86D08049C21D27721E4229646393E
- Involving disabled users: informal evaluation throughout development is more effective than only formal testing at the end, and user involvement alone cannot determine whether a site is accessible. Guidance, not a standard. MEDIUM (pending verification), single source. Source: https://www.w3.org/WAI/test-evaluate/involving-users/
- Interviews, usability testing and surveys are the methods researchers report using most (92%, 73%, 72%). MEDIUM: a single vendor's survey of its own audience, n=485, mostly people with research titles, not the non-specialist teams this plugin would serve. Source: https://www.userinterviews.com/state-of-research-strategy
- Dovetail's research-repository MCP endpoint exists and requires authentication; Anthropic's connector directory lists it as made by Dovetail. HIGH (vendor docs, directory entry and an unauthenticated probe). Sources: https://developers.dovetail.com/docs/mcp, https://claude.com/connectors/dovetail
- Other vendors state they ship MCP servers for repositories (Condens, Great Question, Maze), recruiting (User Interviews, UserTesting) and surveys or testing (SurveyMonkey, Typeform, Qualtrics, Optimal Workshop, Lyssna). Single-publisher or vendor-plus-probe, MEDIUM. Per the vendors, most are beta, early access or plan-gated: Maze's is beta and Enterprise-only, UserTesting's and User Interviews' are early access, and Condens limits its server to Business plans (Enterprise for custom clients). The surface exists but is young, which supports a later lane rather than V1 (judgment).
- Collecting personal information: collect only the information you need; when consent is the legal basis it must be an explicit agreement, and users who refuse must still be able to use the service. MEDIUM (pending verification), single source, written for UK government services; the guide defers legal basis to a data protection expert. Source: https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/design/collecting-personal-information-from-users
Open questions for a human interview
- Settled: V1 of
user-experiencewrites instruments only, and this issue owns running sessions and ResearchOps. Still open: which of the proposed scope items ship first. - Which participant, recruiting, survey and repository tools do the teams that would use this run, and what is their MCP status for them?
- What consent, retention and recording rules apply (for example GDPR, and any market-research code the team follows), and who reviews them?
- Who is the human analyst of record for findings the plugin helps produce?
- Are AI-moderated sessions allowed, and under what disclosure to participants?
- Who sets and approves incentives?
- Where does the research repository live, and should the
user-experienceplugin read prior studies from it before planning new ones?
Related
- #6306 (
user-experienceplugin; this is the participants and research-operations sibling) - #6298 (UI plugin; owns accessibility conformance)
- #6302 (DX; developer studies route to UX methods, developer-specific measures stay with DX)
- #6430 (product analytics, on demand)
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
- Lenguaje dominante
- Shell
- Estrellas
- 22
- Forks
- 2
- Merge medio
- 5 h 4 min
- PR fusionados (30 d)
- 825
Preparar el entorno
- Sin Dockerfile ni archivo de Docker Compose
- Sin plantilla de pull request
- Leer la guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Más de melodic-software/claude-code-plugins
-
good first issue needs-triage priority: medium
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6499 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
needs-human needs-triage
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 80/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6496 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
good first issue needs-triage priority: low
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6390 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
good first issue needs-triage priority: low
Dificultad 1/5 Menos de una hora Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6386 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
needs-human needs-triage
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
melodic-software/claude-code-plugins#6363 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
Todos los issues de melodic-software/claude-code-plugins
Issues similares
-
electron tech debt
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
documentation
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 88/100
alunduil/alunduil-chezmoi#870 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
package-update
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 68/100
oSoWoSo/vOid_Community_repOsitory#268 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
feature good first issue
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 72/100
dsx-ai-factory/infra-controller#7298 · 1 comentario ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día
-
rebrand-literal-gutter: uhttpd section-vocabulary check trips on a COMMENT (uhttpd.luci in 92-tollgate-admin-setup:178)Posiblemente ocupada Un pull request vinculado a esta issue está abierto o ya se fusionó. Abierto
Dificultad 2/5 1-3 horas Aptitud para principiantes 78/100
OpenTollGate/tollgate-module-basic-go#723 ·
Los mantenedores suelen responder en 1 día