Эти четыре промпта покрывают те части cognitive walkthrough, где AI экономит больше всего времени без потери строгости: симуляция первого пользователя на скриншотах с четырьмя предписанными вопросами, генерация action sequence и персоны по прототипу, стресс-тест дизайна на нескольких персонах параллельно и кластеризация точек отказа в приоритизированный список фиксов. Каждый промпт надо заполнить своим продуктом, персоной и скриншотами, а потом запустить в Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini или любом мультимодальном LLM с достаточно длинным контекстным окном. Промпты предполагают человеческую команду в петле — модель делает первый проход, воркшоп подтверждает или переопределяет.
Промпт 1: Мультимодальный cognitive walkthrough на скриншотах
You are an experienced UX researcher running a Cognitive Walkthrough on a [тип продукта — например, медицинский чек-ин на планшете, B2B-онбординг, AI-фича в приложении продуктивности] for [персона — например, новый пациент за пятьдесят, никогда не пользовавшийся этим приложением].
Persona details (knowledge, motivation, prior experience):
[опишите персону в 3-5 предложениях — что знает о домене, что знает о похожих продуктах, что хочет достичь, что ожидает увидеть]
Task scenario:
[одно предложение — что пользователь пытается сделать]
Starting state: [что на экране в начале]
Goal state: [как выглядит успех]
Action sequence (the correct path the user would need to take):
1. [действие 1]
2. [действие 2]
...
I will paste/attach screenshots of each step in order.
For every action in the sequence, answer the four Cognitive Walkthrough questions from the persona's point of view:
1. Will the user try to achieve this result? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
2. Will the user notice that the correct action is available? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
3. Will the user associate the correct action with the result they want? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
4. After the action is performed, will the user see that progress is being made? (Yes / No / Maybe + one-sentence rationale)
End each action with a verdict (Pass / Hesitate / Fail) and tag which of the four questions broke down.
Stay in the persona's voice. Do not slip into "any designer knows" or "I would just" — speak as the imagined first-time user.Промпт 2: Сгенерировать action sequence и персону по прототипу
You are helping me prepare a Cognitive Walkthrough. I will paste a description (or screenshots) of a prototype below. Produce a draft persona, task scenario, and step-by-step action sequence I can use as the starting document for a workshop.
Prototype description / screenshots:
[вставьте ссылку, описание или прикрепите скриншоты]
Product context: [что это за продукт, кто целевой пользователь]
Critical task to evaluate: [одна задача, которую вы хотите пройти]
Please produce:
1. A one-page persona for a brand-new user of this product. Include: prior knowledge of the domain, prior experience with similar products, motivation for being on this screen, context (location, device, emotional state), and 2-3 expectations they would bring from previous experiences.
2. A task scenario: one-sentence description, starting state, goal state.
3. An action sequence — the correct path the user would need to take, one row per click or interaction, in order. Be specific about the element they would interact with on each step.
4. A list of 3-5 alternative paths the user might take by mistake, for the team to discuss during the walkthrough.
5. A list of any prior knowledge or assumptions the design seems to depend on, that a first-time user might not have.
Flag any step where you are uncertain about the correct action or where the persona's likely behavior is hard to predict.Промпт 3: Стресс-тест дизайна на нескольких персонах параллельно
I need to run a Cognitive Walkthrough on the same task scenario against 5 different personas in parallel, to see which failure points are persona-specific and which are universal.
Task scenario:
[одно предложение]
Starting state: [что на экране]
Goal state: [состояние успеха]
Action sequence:
[вставьте action list]
Personas to run in parallel:
1. Novice: [3-предложное описание]
2. Returning user: [3-предложное описание]
3. Low-literacy: [3-предложное описание]
4. Non-native speaker (English as second language): [3-предложное описание]
5. Accessibility user (e.g., screen reader): [3-предложное описание]
Screenshots: [вставьте]
For each persona, run the four Cognitive Walkthrough questions on every action, and produce one row per persona-action pair with the verdict and rationale.
At the end, build a matrix:
- Rows: actions
- Columns: personas
- Cells: Pass / Hesitate / Fail
Highlight:
1. Failure points that are universal across all personas (the most urgent fixes)
2. Failure points that are specific to one or two personas (smaller but persona-critical fixes)
3. Any persona that fails more than 50% of the steps (the design may not be viable for that group at all)
4. Any step where the personas split in surprising ways and the team should investigate furtherПромпт 4: Кластеризация точек отказа и приоритизированный список фиксов
I have a Cognitive Walkthrough log of [N] failure points across [M] actions for [задача] in [продукт]. The team has roughly [инженерные и дизайн ресурсы] for the next sprint.
Walkthrough log:
[вставьте каждую точку отказа с: action ID, экран, какой из четырёх вопросов сломался (формирование цели / видимость действия / лейблинг / обратная связь), серьёзность (fail / hesitate) и абзац обоснования]
Please:
1. Cluster the failure points by which of the four questions broke down. Report the count per cluster and identify the dominant failure type for this design.
2. For each cluster, propose a category of fix (onboarding, copy, layout, affordance, system message, etc.) and explain why it addresses that specific question type.
3. Score each individual failure point on three dimensions (1-5 each): severity (does the user completely fail or just hesitate), frequency (how often a real user would hit it), and effort to fix (1 = small, 5 = large).
4. Compute a priority score (severity + frequency – effort) and sort the failure points from highest to lowest priority.
5. Recommend the top 5-10 failure points to fix in the next sprint, with a concrete proposed fix and a rough effort estimate per item.
6. Identify any cluster of 3+ failure points on the same screen — these may deserve a redesign of the screen rather than incremental patches.
7. Draft a 5-sentence executive summary the lead can use as the opening of the readout brief, anchored on the dominant failure type and the top recommended fix.