---

name: research-decision-room description: | Turn messy user research notes, interviews, support tickets, surveys, and product context into an evidence-backed decision room: a single HTML artifact with an evidence ledger, theme map, confidence heatmap, opportunity matrix, decision memo, and experiment queue. Use when teams need to move from qualitative signals to product or design decisions without fabricating certainty. triggers:

• "research decision room"
• "user research synthesis"
• "research synthesis dashboard"
• "evidence-backed product decision"
• "interview synthesis"
• "opportunity solution tree"
• "usability findings dashboard"
• "qualitative research board" od: mode: prototype platform: desktop scenario: research preview: type: html entry: index.html reload: debounce-100 design_system: requires: true sections: [color, typography, layout, components] craft: requires: [typography, color, accessibility-baseline, anti-ai-slop] inputs:
  • name: research_material type: string required: true description: "Interview notes, tickets, survey excerpts, analytics notes, or a product decision brief"
  • name: decision_scope type: string required: false description: "The product/design decision the team needs to make" outputs: primary: index.html example_prompt: "Synthesize 8 interview notes, 24 support tickets, and recent activation metrics into a research decision room for whether a project-management app should add an onboarding checklist or contextual inline tips." capabilities_required:
  • file_write

---

Research Decision Room Skill

Create a single-page HTML decision artifact that helps a product or design team turn messy evidence into a clear next move. The output is not a decorative research deck. It is a working room for debate: evidence, themes, confidence, tradeoffs, and recommended experiments stay visible together.

Resource map

research-decision-room/
├── SKILL.md
├── example.html
└── references/
    ├── checklist.md
    └── evidence-model.md

Read references/evidence-model.md before synthesis and run references/checklist.md before emitting the artifact.

When to use this skill

Use this skill when the user has any mix of:

• Interview notes, usability-test observations, support tickets, sales call notes, app-store reviews, NPS comments, survey open text, analytics snippets, or product-decision context.
• A decision that needs evidence: "Should we build X?", "Which onboarding path should we try?", "Why are users dropping off?", "What do customers actually mean by slow?"
• A need to share findings with stakeholders who will not read a long research report.

Do not use it for pure visual inspiration, campaign ideation, or brand moodboards.

Workflow

Step 1 - Establish the decision frame

Identify the decision scope from the user's prompt. If the user did not give a decision, derive one from the evidence and label it as inferred.

Write a short frame with:

• Decision question.
• Audience or segment.
• Time horizon.
• Known constraints.
• What this artifact will not decide.

If key context is missing and the task is not blocked, proceed with labelled assumptions instead of asking a broad question.

Step 2 - Build the evidence ledger

Normalize every useful signal into ledger rows using the model in references/evidence-model.md.

Each ledger row must include:

• id: short stable id, such as I-03, T-14, M-02.
• source_type: interview, usability, support, survey, analytics, sales, field note, or stakeholder.
• segment: user type or "unknown".
• signal: one-sentence observation.
• quote_or_metric: direct quote, metric, or "not provided".
• strength: strong, medium, or weak.
• limitations: why this evidence may be biased or incomplete.

Never invent quotes, participant counts, dates, revenue impact, or metrics. If the user did not provide a number, use "not provided" and explain what evidence would increase confidence.

Step 3 - Synthesize themes and tensions

Cluster evidence into 4 to 6 themes. For each theme:

• Name the theme in plain human language.
• List the evidence ids that support it.
• Explain the behavior behind it, not just the UI complaint.
• Mark confidence as high, medium, or low.
• Note contradictions or segment differences.

Prefer verbs over nouns: "Teams abandon setup when the first blank state asks for too much" is better than "Onboarding problem".

Step 4 - Score opportunities

Create an opportunity matrix with 3 to 5 options. Score each option on a 1 to 5 scale:

• Evidence strength.
• User pain.
• Business leverage.
• Implementation risk, where 5 means low risk and 1 means high risk.

Show the total score, but do not let the score replace judgment. Add one sentence on why the top recommendation wins.

Step 5 - Draft the decision memo

Write a decision memo with:

1. Recommended move.
2. Why now.
3. What evidence supports it.
4. What could be wrong.
5. What to measure next.
6. Reversible next step.

Keep the memo short enough to read in under one minute.

Step 6 - Create the HTML artifact

Produce a self-contained index.html. Use the active DESIGN.md for typography, spacing, color roles, and component tone, but keep the information architecture stable:

1. Header with decision question, confidence, and last-updated label.
2. Executive readout with recommendation, risk, and next experiment.
3. Evidence ledger with filter chips.
4. Theme map with evidence ids and confidence.
5. Opportunity matrix.
6. Decision memo.
7. Experiment queue with owner, metric, and success threshold.
8. Assumptions and limitations.

The artifact should be interactive but durable. Simple vanilla JavaScript is allowed for filtering evidence, switching views, or highlighting related ids. No framework dependency is required.

Step 7 - Self-check and emit

Run the checklist. Then emit one concise orientation sentence and one HTML artifact:

<artifact identifier="research-decision-room" type="text/html" title="Research Decision Room">
<!doctype html>
<html>...</html>
</artifact>

Nothing after the closing </artifact>.