sales-skills/sales-uxarmy

UXArmy Platform Help

UXArmy (uxarmy.com) is a self-serve user-research and usability-testing suite — the tool you reach for when you have a design, prototype, or live site and want real users to test it. It runs the full battery in one seat: unmoderated testing (screen + audio recording, full-journey heatmaps across multiple screens, AI summaries, auto-transcription in 25+ languages, Figma prototype testing), DeepDive® moderated research (1:1 interviews, dyads, triads, focus groups; long sessions with multi-screen sharing and live multi-language transcription), card sorting (open / closed / hybrid with automated similarity analysis), tree testing (success rate, destination matrix, pietree), and surveys — plus AI auto-tagging, follow-up question generation, and sentiment analysis. Its peers are UXtweak, Lyssna, Maze, Optimal Workshop; its two real edges are an APAC/Asia-first panel and a pooled-credit price model where the IA methods are nearly free.

Three things to say almost every time:

• Price the study in credits, not in dollars. UXArmy charges per response, by method — the spread is enormous (a recorded usability response costs hundreds of times a card-sort response). The plan's monthly credit count means nothing until you multiply it by the method. Do this math before recommending a plan.
• UXArmy tests a built thing, and a task-success metric is not validated demand. A clean tree test says the design works, not that strangers will pay. If the user is still deciding whether to build, that go/no-go belongs to a real behavior test — route to /sales-idea-validation.
• UXArmy is UI-only. No public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP — "pipe results into my warehouse" is an export or one of the few native integrations (Slack, Figma, Google Sheets), not REST.

Step 1 — Gather context

If references/learnings.md exists, read it first for accumulated platform knowledge.

Ask only what you can't infer:

1. What do you want from UXArmy?
   • A) Pick a study type — unmoderated test vs DeepDive moderated vs card sort vs tree test vs survey
   • B) Budget a study — how many credits will this burn, which plan do I need, is the free plan enough
   • C) Recruit participants — the APAC/EMEA/Americas panel (paid add-on) vs bringing your own testers
   • D) Read results — heatmaps, similarity analysis (card sort), destination matrix / pietree (tree test), AI summaries
   • E) Get data out — export or Slack / Figma / Google Sheets (no API — manual/native only)
   • F) Choose — UXArmy vs UXtweak / Lyssna / Maze / Optimal Workshop
2. Which markets are your users in? UXArmy's panel is deepest in Asia-Pacific — that's the main reason to pick it over its peers, and the main reason to skip it if your users are elsewhere.
3. Are you testing something you've already built/designed, or still deciding whether to build? The second is an idea-validation question, not a usability question — flag it in Step 2.

Skip-ahead: if the user's prompt already names the study type and their question is specific, go to Step 3.

Step 2 — Route or answer directly

| If the user's question is about… | Route to | |---|---| | Comparing research/usability/validator tools across the market, or the validate-before-building method | /sales-idea-validation {question} | | An API / webhook / MCP-native research pipeline (UXArmy has none) | /sales-userintuition {question} | | Running a real behavior demand test (smoke-test page, waitlist, pre-sale) instead of a usability test | /sales-idea-validation or /sales-funnel {question} | | Analyzing existing NPS/CSAT/VoC/review feedback (post-launch, not new tests) | /sales-customer-feedback {question} |

When routing, give the exact command: "This is a {domain} question — run: /sales-idea-validation {original question}"

Otherwise, answer UXArmy-specific questions using Step 3.

Step 3 — UXArmy platform reference

Read references/platform-guide.md for the full reference — the study-type catalog (what each tool measures and how to read its output), the module/automation-surface table (what's exportable vs UI-only), best-effort pricing with the per-method credit table and worked study budgets, the panel's regional coverage, the Study → Task → Participant → Response data model, and the no-API data-out playbook. UXArmy has no public API, so there is no API-reference file.

Answer using only the relevant section — don't dump the full reference.

Step 4 — Actionable guidance

• Always convert the study into credits before naming a plan. Take the method × the response count and multiply by the per-method credit cost from references/platform-guide.md, then compare that number to the plan's monthly credits. The methods are priced radically differently — recorded usability responses and moderated interviews are the expensive ones, while card sorting, tree testing, and surveys cost a small fraction of a credit each, so a plan that funds only a couple of recorded sessions funds a very large IA study. Never recommend a tier without showing this math. Every time you quote a credit cost or a plan price in that math, label the figures best-effort in the same breath and point to uxarmy.com/pricing — these numbers move, and a bare figure reads as verified fact.
• Lead with the panel-geography question whenever tool choice comes up. UXArmy's distinguishing asset is Asia-Pacific panel depth (20+ APAC countries), with lighter EMEA and Americas coverage. If the user's target users are in APAC, say that's the reason to pick it over UXtweak/Lyssna/Maze; if they're in North America or Europe, say plainly that the peers' panels are larger there and the APAC edge doesn't apply to them.
• State that the panel is a separate paid add-on, not included in the plan. Every tier's credits cover responses, not recruitment — panel access is purchased on top (and on-demand recruitment is an Organization-tier add-on). Bringing your own testers avoids that cost entirely, so for a founder testing with existing users, self-recruiting is the cheap path. Say this before they budget.
• Say the caveat: a usability metric is not demand. Whatever the user asks, make explicit that UXArmy measures whether a built design works (task success, findability, first-click accuracy) — it does not prove strangers will pay. If they're still deciding whether to build, keep the usability findings but take the go/no-go from a real behavior test via /sales-idea-validation.
• Flag it as UI-only when any automation or export comes up. UXArmy has no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP (verify against current docs — it may change). Automation asks resolve to export or the native Slack / Figma / Google Sheets integrations. Warn that reviewers report export coverage is uneven by study type (notably that some per-task metrics like time-on-task aren't exportable), so tell them to verify the export contains their metric before running the full study. If they need a live programmatic pipeline, route to /sales-userintuition.
• Present all pricing as best-effort and point to uxarmy.com/pricing. Plan prices, monthly credit allowances, and the per-method credit costs all move, and panel/recruitment pricing is quote-based. State any figure as best-effort and name the pricing page.
• Match the IA method to the question. Use card sorting when the question is how users would group and name content (open = let them create/label categories to discover a structure; closed = sort into your categories to validate them; hybrid = both); use tree testing when the structure already exists and the question is whether users can find things in it (findability + first-click path, no visual design). Run the card sort to design the tree, then the tree test to validate it — and read them via UXArmy's automated similarity analysis and the destination matrix / pietree respectively. Don't run a tree test to judge visuals.
• Name the participant count explicitly, and say why, whenever you size or budget a study. Don't let a number appear only as an input to the credit math — state the target and its reasoning. For qualitative usability (unmoderated task tests, DeepDive moderated), ~5 participants per user group surfaces most major issues; for quantitative IA (card sort / tree test), aim much higher — roughly 30+ — because the similarity matrix and findability score need the volume to be statistically stable, and a card sort with 5 people is noise. Always flag these as rules-of-thumb, not guarantees. The credit model makes that split cheap: the study type needing 30+ people is the one costing a fraction of a credit per response.
• Check RTL/language support before recommending it for a market. Transcription covers 25+ languages, but reviewers report Arabic and Hebrew are not supported — for MENA/RTL research, verify current support first and be ready to name a different tool.

If you discover a gotcha or tip not in references/learnings.md, append it there with today's date.

Gotchas

Best-effort from research (2026-07) — pricing, the per-method credit costs, plan gates, panel coverage, and the (absent) API/export surface move; verify at uxarmy.com.

• The credit cost per response varies by method by orders of magnitude. A recorded usability response and a moderated-interview response are the expensive ones; card sorting, tree testing, and surveys cost a tiny fraction of a credit each. Reading "N monthly credits" as "N responses" will be wrong by ~100× in either direction. Always multiply by the method — the table is in references/platform-guide.md.
• The free plan is unusually generous for IA and surveys, and tiny for recorded tests. Free includes access to all tools, unlimited active studies, unlimited storage, unlimited transcription, unlimited test length, and all AI features — but its monthly credits fund only a couple of recorded usability responses. Don't dismiss the free tier for a card sort; don't trust it for video research.
• The participant panel is a paid add-on, not part of the plan. Credits buy responses, not recruitment. Panel access is purchased separately (Starter+), and on-demand recruitment / end-to-end research assistance are Organization-tier add-ons. Self-recruiting your own users avoids the cost.
• Usability ≠ demand. UXArmy proves a design works, not that anyone will buy — the go/no-go on building still belongs to a real behavior test (smoke test, pre-sale). Route that to /sales-idea-validation.
• No API, no webhooks, no Zapier, no MCP. UXArmy is UI-only; data-out is export plus a short integration list (Slack, Figma, Google Sheets) that reviewers specifically call thin. Don't design a live REST pipeline around it — route pipeline needs to /sales-userintuition.
• Export coverage is uneven and some metrics don't come out. Reviewers report not being able to see time-per-task or export certain data to a spreadsheet. Verify your specific metric survives export before you spend credits on the full study.
• Arabic and Hebrew (RTL) are reported unsupported. Despite 25+ transcription languages, the panel's APAC/EMEA reach doesn't extend to RTL scripts — check before promising a MENA study.
• Respondent personal-info collection is reported as mandatory and not switchable off. If your study has a data-minimization or privacy constraint, confirm what's collected before recruiting.
• Reviewers report a dated UI, occasional lag, a limited mobile app, and no test preview. Expect to send a study without a full dry-run preview — pilot with one internal tester first to catch mistakes before they cost credits.

Related skills

• /sales-uxtweak — The closest all-in-one usability + IA suite peer (same card sort / tree test / first-click / five-second / prototype battery) on a 130-country panel — route here to compare; UXtweak's panel carries a minimum spend where UXArmy sells pooled credits, and UXArmy's panel is the APAC-deeper one. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-uxtweak -a claude-code
• /sales-lyssna — The ex-UsabilityHub usability + IA suite with a large global panel and a seat-generous free plan — route here when panel size in North America / Europe matters more than UXArmy's APAC depth. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-lyssna -a claude-code
• /sales-userfeel — The multilingual/international usability peer (40+ languages, 40+ countries) — route here when the study spans many languages generally rather than Asia-Pacific specifically, or when UXArmy's missing RTL support is the blocker. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userfeel -a claude-code
• /sales-useberry — The prototype-first usability peer (deep Figma/Sketch/ProtoPie import) with no panel of its own (recruits via Prolific) — route here when prototype-flow depth matters more than bringing a panel. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-useberry -a claude-code
• /sales-userbrain — The narrow, cheaper peer: only task-based think-aloud video, no IA battery — route here when the user just wants to watch real people use a built thing. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userbrain -a claude-code
• /sales-idea-validation — The tool-agnostic validate-before-building method plus the full research/usability/validator tool landscape (use this to actually decide build-or-not; a passing usability test is not demand). Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-idea-validation -a claude-code
• /sales-userintuition — The API/webhook/MCP-native real-human interview peer — the pick when you need a programmatic research pipeline UXArmy can't offer. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-userintuition -a claude-code
• /sales-customer-feedback — Real-customer NPS/CSAT/VoC strategy across tools (use to analyze existing feedback; UXArmy proactively runs new tests). Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-customer-feedback -a claude-code
• /sales-funnel — Build the smoke-test / fake-door landing page that turns a design hypothesis into a real demand test. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-funnel -a claude-code
• /sales-do — Not sure which skill to use? The router matches any sales objective to the right skill. Install: npx skills add sales-skills/sales --skill sales-do -a claude-code

Examples

Example 1: "Nobody can find our pricing page in the nav — and I'm broke"

User says: "Our menu is a mess and users miss half of it. I'm a solo founder on the free plan — can I actually test this in UXArmy without paying?" Skill does: Recommends a tree test for nav findability (success rate, directness, first-click path), preceded by an open card sort if the labels themselves are in doubt. Does the credit math out loud: tree-test and card-sort responses cost a fraction of a credit each, so the free plan's monthly credits fund far more than the ~30+ participants needed for a stable result — this is exactly where the free tier is genuinely enough. Notes the panel is a separate paid add-on, so self-recruiting keeps it free. Flags figures as best-effort against uxarmy.com/pricing, and adds that a clean tree test proves the nav works, not that the offer sells. Result: The founder runs a properly-powered tree test on the free plan with self-recruited testers.

Example 2: "How do I get UXArmy results into our warehouse automatically?" (developer/automation)

User says: "I want every completed study's results to flow into our data warehouse and a dashboard." Skill does: States plainly that UXArmy is UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP — there is no automated REST path. Data-out is export plus a short native list (Slack notifications, Figma prototype import, Google Sheets for tabular results); Sheets is the closest thing to a pipeline, so a scheduled job over that sheet is the realistic warehouse leg. Warns that reviewers report uneven export coverage (time-on-task reportedly doesn't come out) and to pilot one participant's export before spending credits. Routes a hard programmatic requirement to /sales-userintuition, naming the trade-off. Result: The user stops hunting for an API that doesn't exist and wires up Sheets + a scheduled export.

Example 3: "Is UXArmy the right pick, or should I use Maze?"

User says: "We're launching in Indonesia and Vietnam. Choosing between UXArmy, Maze, and Lyssna." Skill does: Leads with panel geography: Asia-Pacific depth is why UXArmy exists — 20+ APAC countries including Indonesia and Vietnam, where the peers thin out — so it's the recommendation here. Names the trade-offs honestly: peers are stronger in North America/Europe, reviewers call the UI dated and the integration list thin (Slack/Figma/Google Sheets, no API), and the panel is a paid add-on. Prices the study in credits per method rather than quoting a plan, flagging every figure as best-effort. Result: The team picks UXArmy for the APAC panel with clear eyes on the UI and export limits.

Troubleshooting

"The plan says 99 credits — how many tests is that?"

Symptom: The user reads the monthly credit count as a response count and budgets wrong. Cause: UXArmy charges credits per response, per method, and the methods differ by orders of magnitude — recorded usability responses and moderated interviews are expensive; card sorting, tree testing, and surveys cost a small fraction of a credit each. Figma tests without recording sit between, far below a recorded session. Solution: Multiply method × response count using the per-method credit table in references/platform-guide.md before picking a tier. The same balance buys either a handful of recorded sessions or a very large IA study — which is why the free tier is fine for a card sort and useless for video research. Credits are pooled across methods and Starter+ adds pay-as-you-go top-ups, so a mixed study draws from one balance. Confirm current costs at uxarmy.com/pricing.

"I ran the study but can't get the numbers I need out"

Symptom: Results look right in the UI but the export is missing metrics, or there's no way to automate the handoff. Cause: UXArmy is UI-only — no public API, webhooks, Zapier, or MCP — and reviewers report export coverage is uneven by study type (notably time-per-task and some spreadsheet exports). Solution: Use Google Sheets for tabular results, Slack for notifications, and manual export for the rest. Critically: run a one-participant pilot and export it before spending credits on the full study, so a missing metric surfaces while it's cheap. If a live programmatic pipeline is a requirement, route to /sales-userintuition (REST API + HMAC-signed webhooks + MCP server).

"Which study type do I use — card sort or tree test?"

Symptom: The user isn't sure whether to test categories/labels or navigation findability. Cause: The two answer different IA questions and are easy to confuse. Solution: Use card sorting when the question is how users would group and name content (open = let them create/label categories; closed = sort into your categories to validate them; hybrid = both). Use tree testing when the structure exists and the question is whether users can find an item in it (findability + first-click path, no visual design). Run the card sort to design the tree, then the tree test to validate it. Read the card sort via UXArmy's automated similarity analysis, the tree test via the destination matrix and pietree. Both cost a fraction of a credit per response, so power them properly (~30+ participants).