SUMMARY
Purpose: Prioritised Fixes help teams rapidly evaluate usability issues and systematically decide what to fix first, enabling focused iteration between test and release.
Design Thinking Phase: Test
Time: 45–60 min session + 1–2 hours analysis
Difficulty: ⭐⭐
When to use:After usability tests reveal multiple interaction issuesWhen product timelines don’t allow for full redesignsDuring sprint retros focused on fast iteration
What it is
Prioritised Fixes is a fast, collaborative UX method used to synthesise test findings and rank usability issues based on severity, business impact, and user value. The goal is to resolve the most critical blockers before the next release without overhauling the entire experience.
📺 Video by NNgroup. Embedded for educational reference.
Why it matters
Shipping great products isn’t just about spotting UX issues — it’s about fixing the right ones. Prioritised Fixes turns scattered usability findings into a focused action list aligned with user impact and product goals. It ensures the next iteration delivers meaningful improvements instead of superficial polish.
When to use
- Immediately after a usability test or pilot
- As part of retrospective analysis at the end of a sprint
- Prior to stakeholder reviews where proof of progress is needed
Benefits
- Rich Insights: Helps uncover user needs that aren’t visible in metrics.
- Flexibility: Works across various project types and timelines.
- User Empathy: Deepens understanding of behaviours and motivations.
How to use it
- Step 1 – Consolidate Findings: List all observed issues from user testing or usage analysis. Group similar patterns to reduce duplication.
- Step 2 – Rate by Severity: Use a scale (e.g., Low, Medium, High) to indicate severity from the user's perspective.
- Step 3 – Map Impact: For each issue, assess business risk, frequency, and alignment to goals. Map them into a 2x2 grid if helpful.
- Step 4 – Prioritise Fixes: Select 3–5 high value, low effort fixes to ship in the next cycle.
- Step 5 – Assign Owners: Add priority fixes to your team board with owners, context links, and expected outcomes.
Example Output
Following a usability test on a checkout funnel, the design team listed 12 issues. They used Prioritised Fixes to agree that confusing discount field logic and unclear shipping ETA messaging were the top priorities to address for the next sprint. They were marked on the team Jira board and resolved within a week.
Common Pitfalls
- Poor Scoping: Trying to fix everything in one sprint dilutes focus. Choose fixes with the highest ROI.
- Ignoring User Language: Write issue statements in the voice of the user (“I don’t know what will arrive when”) to centre empathy.
- One-Person Decisions: Always prioritise collaboratively with design, product, and engineering stakeholders.
10 Design-Ready AI Prompts for Prioritised Fixes – UX/UI Edition
How These Prompts Work (C.S.I.R. Framework)
Each of the templates below follows the C.S.I.R. method — a proven structure for writing clear, effective prompts that get better results from ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot, or any other LLM.
C.S.I.R. stands for:
- Context: Who you are and the UX situation you're working in
- Specific Info: Key design inputs, tasks, or constraints the AI should consider
- Intent: What you want the AI to help you achieve
- Response Format: The structure or format you want the AI to return (e.g. checklist, table, journey map)
Level up your career with smarter AI prompts.Get templates used by UX leaders — no guesswork, just results.Design faster, research smarter, and ship with confidence.First one’s free. Unlock all 10 by becoming a member.
Prompt Template 1: “Prioritise Fixes from Usability Test Results:”
Prioritise Fixes from Usability Test Results:
Context: You are a UX researcher preparing design iteration recommendations after conducting a moderated usability test.
Specific Info: You observed [X number] of issues across [key user flows], with notes from [user quotes, screen recordings, or task failures].
Intent: Help summarise and prioritise the top issues based on severity, impact, and level of effort.
Response Format: Output a table with columns for "Issue Description", "User Impact", "Business Risk", "Fix Impact", and "Priority Score".
Ask me for additional context if you need to clarify any flows or tasks. Suggest one follow-up metric to monitor post-fix.
Prompt Template 2: “Cluster Similar Issues from Testing Notes:”
Cluster Similar Issues from Testing Notes:
Context: You are analysing raw usability session notes with repetitive observations.
Specific Info: The notes cover [5–7 sessions] on a feature like [account setup], including logged issues, user feedback, and quotes.
Intent: Group overlapping usability issues under shared themes to enable clearer prioritisation.
Response Format: Return a bulleted list of 3–5 issue clusters, each with common user behaviour, representative quotes, and suggested action.
If any feedback is ambiguous, ask for clarification. Suggest 1 theme worth deeper study in future tests.
Prompt Template 3: “Score UX Issues for Fix Priority:”
Score UX Issues for Fix Priority:
Context: You’re a senior UX designer finalising which issues to address before the next sprint.
Specific Info: You’ve listed issues from [testing/data], each rated by [impact, effort, and urgency].
Intent: Help calculate fix priority using a simple scorecard model.
Response Format: Return a table with scores per issue across (User Harm, Frequency, Ease to Fix), and a final “Priority Score”.
Ask for scale definitions if unclear. Recommend a cut-off threshold if needed.
Prompt Template 4: “Map Issues to Product OKRs:”
Map Issues to Product OKRs:
Context: You are aligning usability issues with the product team’s quarterly objectives.
Specific Info: Your product OKRs target outcomes like [conversion, retention], and the team has surfaced [X] issues from recent feedback.
Intent: Help identify which UX fixes directly support OKRs.
Response Format: Return a table mapping each usability issue to relevant OKRs, with notes on alignment strength and urgency.
If OKRs change often, clarify how often this mapping is refreshed. Suggest 1 new metric if none currently track this UX pain.
Prompt Template 5: “Draft a Fix List for a Sprint Planning Session:”
Draft a Fix List for a Sprint Planning Session:
Context: You’re preparing inputs for sprint planning, focusing on post-test UX improvements.
Specific Info: You’ve selected [3–4 critical issues] with Dev and PM input.
Intent: Generate clear, implementation-ready issue summaries.
Response Format: Create a list of user stories or acceptance criteria, each including context, rationale, and definition of done.
Ask about tech constraints if unsure of feasibility. Recommend 1 design QA step to include after implementation.
Prompt Template 6: “Write Issue Statements in User Language:”
Write Issue Statements in User Language:
Context: You’re sharing findings with stakeholders who aren’t familiar with UX research terminology.
Specific Info: You have an internal issue log using technical labels like “CTA discovery friction” and you want it to reflect user pain more clearly.
Intent: Reword issues using the voice of real users to generate empathy.
Response Format: Output a list of rewritten issue descriptions framed as “I” statements or relatable user quotes.
Ask for user personas if tone variation is needed. Suggest 1 insight quote that would resonate with execs.
Prompt Template 7: “Find Fast-Fix UX Improvements:”
Find Fast-Fix UX Improvements:
Context: You are conducting a UI audit under time/resource constraints.
Specific Info: You have screenshots or flows with known minor issues around [visibility, copy tone, feedback].
Intent: Identify quick UX wins that don’t require deep rework.
Response Format: Return a bullet list of low-effort, high-impact suggestions (e.g., text changes, spacing tweaks, icon alignment).
Ask about design system constraints if unsure. Suggest a follow-up for validating effectiveness post-change.
Prompt Template 8: “Create a Fixes Impact Map for Stakeholders:”
Create a Fixes Impact Map for Stakeholders:
Context: You’re presenting usability updates at a product review meeting.
Specific Info: You’ve made [4–6 major fixes] and want to communicate their effect on UX outcomes.
Intent: Visualise which fixes contributed to specific user or business goals.
Response Format: Return a 2-column map showing “Fix Action” and “Outcome Improved”, with brief rationale.
Ask for audience type (execs, design, or eng) to tailor tone. Suggest 1 case study format to deepen stakeholder engagement.
Prompt Template 9: “Suggest a UX Debrief Format with Engineering:”
Suggest a UX Debrief Format with Engineering:
Context: You’re wrapping up a test/fix cycle and want to share learnings with developers.
Specific Info: The team resolved [X issues] and you want to close the loop on user impact.
Intent: Propose an effective async or live debrief format.
Response Format: Provide a suggested doc or meeting outline, with recommended sections, duration, and next steps.
Ask for team preferences if known. Suggest 1 way to sustain learning across future sprints.
Prompt Template 10: “Recommend Metrics for Tracking Fix Outcomes:”
Recommend Metrics for Tracking Fix Outcomes:
Context: You want to validate impact of UX fixes over time.
Specific Info: The fixes aimed to improve [completion rate, NPS, time-on-task] and were launched [X days ago].
Intent: Suggest behavioural or signal-based metrics to monitor post-launch.
Response Format: Give a table with metric name, what it measures, and how it connects to user outcomes.
Ask about available analytics if needed. Recommend 1 qualitative method to pair with the metric review.
Recommended Tools
- Miro – Rapid synthesis and prioritisation sessions
- Dovetail – Tag and cluster research findings efficiently
- Useberry – Lightweight user flows testing
- Loom – Share test findings and propose fix priorities asynchronously
