First-Time User Simulation

<when_to_activate> Activate when:

• •User says "test the docs", "simulate new user", "first-time user test"
• •User wants to audit documentation quality
• •User asks "what's the new user experience like?"
• •Before/after documentation changes to measure improvements

Trigger phrases: "test docs", "new user", "first-time user", "audit docs", "simulate" </when_to_activate>

Critical Constraints

DOCUMENTATION ONLY: You must ONLY follow what's written in the docs. Do NOT:

• •Dive into source code to figure things out
• •Use knowledge from previous sessions
• •Infer solutions not documented
• •Skip steps that seem obvious

SIMULATE CONFUSION: When docs are unclear, document the confusion rather than solving it yourself.

MOCK DATA: Create realistic mock data for the simulation (fake JD, fake experience).

Phase 1: Persona & Scenario Setup

Step 1.1: Define Test Persona

Create a realistic first-time user persona:

persona:
  name: "[Random name]"
  role: "Developer/PM/Designer"
  experience_years: 3-7
  goal: "Generate a portfolio variant for a job application"
  context:
    - Has a job description
    - Has career experience (mocked)
    - Never used Universal CV before
    - Knows basic CLI/npm

Step 1.2: Create Mock Data

Generate realistic test data:

mock_jd: |
  [Create a realistic 200-word job description]
  Include: requirements, nice-to-haves, company info

mock_experience: |
  [Create a brief career summary]
  Include: 2-3 roles, some achievements, skills

Output to user: "Starting first-time user simulation as [persona name]..."

Phase 2: Entry Point Discovery

Step 2.1: Find Starting Documentation

Simulate looking for where to start:

# What files look like entry points?
ls *.md
ls docs/
ls docs/guides/

Step 2.2: Document First Impressions

Record:

• •Which file did you open first?
• •Was it clear this was the right starting point?
• •Were there competing entry points?

Log Format:

entry_point:
  file_opened: "GETTING_STARTED_GUIDE.md"
  clarity: "clear|unclear|confusing"
  competing_docs: ["list", "of", "alternatives"]
  friction: "Description of any confusion"

Phase 3: Follow the Happy Path

Step 3.1: Execute Each Documented Step

For EACH step in the documentation:

1. •Read the instruction exactly as written
2. •Attempt to execute it literally
3. •Document the result

step:
  number: 1
  instruction: "git clone <repository-url>"
  attempted: "git clone <repository-url>"
  result: "success|failure|confusion"
  friction: "What was unclear or missing?"
  time_spent: "estimated seconds/minutes"

Step 3.2: Track Blockers

When you can't proceed:

blocker:
  step: "Step number or description"
  type: "missing_info|unclear_instruction|error|dependency"
  description: "What went wrong"
  workaround_found: true|false
  workaround: "How did you eventually proceed (if at all)"

Phase 4: Tool Testing

Step 4.1: Run Automated CLI Audit

Use the automated CLI audit tool:

# Run full CLI UX audit
npm run audit:cli

# Get JSON output for programmatic analysis
npm run audit:cli -- --json

# Save report to docs/audits/
npm run audit:cli -- --save

This automatically tests:

• •Help availability and quality
• •JSON output support
• •Error message clarity
• •Command execution time
• •Overall UX score

Step 4.2: Manual Spot Checks

For commands not covered by automation, test manually:

npm run dev
npm run ucv-cli  # Note: requires TTY

Step 4.3: Document CLI UX

The audit tool generates structured output:

command:
  name: "npm run analyze:jd"
  help_available: true|false
  help_quality: "excellent|good|poor|none"
  error_messages: "helpful|unhelpful|missing"
  output_clarity: "clear|confusing"
  notes: "Any observations"

Phase 5: Goal Achievement Attempt

Step 5.1: Try to Generate a Variant

Using ONLY documented methods, attempt to:

1. •Analyze a job description
2. •Search for evidence alignment
3. •Generate a variant (or understand why you can't)
4. •Run evaluation pipeline
5. •Preview the result

Step 5.2: Document Success/Failure

goal_attempt:
  target: "Generate variant for mock job"
  achieved: true|false|partial
  steps_completed:
    - "analyze:jd - success"
    - "search:evidence - success"
    - "generate:cv - blocked (no API key)"
  blockers:
    - "No .env.example to guide API setup"
  time_to_first_success: "N/A or duration"

Phase 6: Generate Audit Report

Step 6.1: Compile Findings

Create structured report:

# First-Time User Experience Audit

**Date:** [date]
**Persona:** [name, role]
**Goal:** [what they tried to achieve]

## Executive Summary
- Overall Score: X/10
- Time to First Success: [duration or N/A]
- Critical Blockers: [count]
- Friction Points: [count]

## Journey Map
| Step | Status | Friction Level | Notes |
|------|--------|----------------|-------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

## Critical Blockers
[List blockers that prevented progress]

## Friction Points
[List points of confusion or difficulty]

## CLI Tool Assessment
| Tool | Help | Errors | Output | Rating |
|------|------|--------|--------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | X/10 |

## Recommendations
### Priority 1 (Critical)
- ...

### Priority 2 (High)
- ...

### Priority 3 (Medium)
- ...

## What Worked Well
- ...

Step 6.2: Save Report

# Save to audits directory
docs/audits/YYYY-MM-DD-first-time-user-audit.md

Phase 7: Comparison (Optional)

If previous audits exist, compare:

ls docs/audits/*first-time-user*.md

Generate delta report:

• •Issues fixed since last audit
• •New issues introduced
• •Score progression

Output Artifacts

Quality Checklist

Before completing:

• • Followed ONLY documentation (no code diving)
• • Created realistic mock data
• • Tested all documented CLI commands
• • Attempted the primary user goal
• • Documented all friction points
• • Generated prioritized recommendations
• • Saved audit report

Example Invocations

"Run a first-time user simulation"
"Test the docs as a new user"
"Audit the new user experience"
"Simulate someone trying to use this for the first time"

Integration with Improvement Loop

This skill is designed to be run:

1. •Before changes: Establish baseline score
2. •After changes: Verify improvements
3. •Periodically: Catch documentation drift

Recommended cadence: After any documentation PR, or weekly during active development.

Notes

• •Be genuinely confused when docs are unclear
• •Don't use prior knowledge to fill gaps
• •Time estimates help prioritize fixes
• •Screenshots/terminal output add context
• •Compare to previous audits when available