The Agentic Test Case Designer (TCD) had grown screen by screen, and the team had no single view of its usability, consistency and accessibility issues, or of which to fix first.

Brief: produce an audit the team can act on, with every finding tied to a screenshot, a suggested fix and a priority.

Agentic TCD is part of Cyara’s automated CX testing platform. The audit covered Campaigns, New Campaign, Test Cases and Agentic Tests, New/Edit Agentic Test, Reporting, and the Designer canvas. The reference point was Cyara Rocket, the internal design system, with its ultramarine, San Marino and malibu blue palette.

User feedback came first: the historical run view in the Designer canvas leaves too little room to read conversation steps, and the hide-summary and hide-audio toggles only partly solve it. I then walked each page group with annotated screenshots and checked them against Rocket components and colors.

The key discussion was scope. Rather than one giant pass, I chose a progressive audit, one page group at a time, so findings could be reviewed and reprioritized as they came in.

• Feed annotated screenshots to Claude and have it draft findings, suggested fixes, and Impact and Effort ratings.
• Review every drafted line against product context. Nothing went into the tracker unreviewed.
• Edit my existing tracker in place instead of building a new workbook: 10 columns, tabs for Overall, New Agentic TC, TCD, Campaign Index and Report, and a Priority score calculated by formula from Impact and Effort.
• Write a short brief document alongside the tracker for stakeholders who won’t open a spreadsheet.

Notable findings:

• Missing flow connector lines in the Designer canvas.
• A clipped “Sensitive Data” badge on a compliance-critical field.
• A “Classic View” migration toggle shipping in the production UI.
• Three distinct navy header shades where one was intended.

Delivered

Tracker and audit brief are complete. The three systemic findings fed directly into Case 2.

Cyara’s six products don’t look or behave like one company. The audit found different colors, navigation and status language from product to product.

Brief: audit the UI/UX of every product, propose one unified direction, and show it in rough sketches and then high-fidelity mockups.

Six products: Cyara Core, Number Trust, Voice Assure, testRTC, ResolveAX and Botium. A three-person UX team, and one design system (Rocket) that needed to serve all six.

The TCD audit exposed three cross-page systemic issues, so I extended the same method across the suite and used AI to compare screens side by side and count the inconsistencies.

The discussion that shaped the proposal was how much to unify. I modeled it on Google’s suite: one shared token layer, with each product free to flex on density.

A three-phase roadmap: shared design tokens first, then navigation shell convergence, then a full re-skin. Fidelity escalated in steps from text findings to annotated screenshots, HTML mockups, Figma wireframes and high-fidelity Figma.

High-fidelity mockups of all six products with custom navigation icons, drop shadows and real chart geometry, including donut arcs, ring gauges and multi-series line charts for Voice Assure. The Figma file has five pages: Audit and Proposal, Rough Sketches, High-Fidelity Mockups, Accessibility Audit (focus states and control tokens) and a Design System Library covering all products.

Proposed

Mockups and roadmap are complete. The three-phase rollout is a proposal.

Dense screens like the Designer canvas need several layout directions compared before one is chosen, and hand-building each in Figma is slow.

Brief: use AI to produce comparable options at a fidelity stakeholders can react to, directly in Figma.

The same screens from Case 1, plus Agentic product reports: a real-time Agentic Cruncher dashboard and an Agentic Load Test Report. Output had to match Rocket colors, so it could move toward engineering without a redraw.

I gathered references before generating anything: the trace-plus-transcript pattern from Okareo, Balsamiq-style wireframes for early conversations, and HTTP request builder patterns from tools like Postman and n8n. The discussion was which directions deserved to be built at all.

• Give specific direction: exact colors, named inspiration, and the layouts I wanted tried.
• Generate several directions in one session: stacked accordion, right rail (my proposal), palette-matched, and Okareo-inspired trace plus transcript with per-turn pass/fail.
• Narrow, then raise fidelity.
• Document each plugin-API quirk as it appeared, so the next session started from a working pattern.

// Append all children first, resize last.
// Resizing an auto-layout frame early collapses it to 1px high.

// Transparent wrapper: clear the default white fill.
function tal(dir, props) {
  const f = figma.createAutoLayout(dir, props);
  f.fills = [];
  return f;
}

A set of comparable canvas layouts, interactive wireframes and dashboards for the Agentic reports, the high-fidelity file from Case 2, and a short library of tested patterns for auto-layout, transparent frames, polygons and donut arcs.

In use

Used for the Unified Look and Agentic mockups. The pattern library keeps growing as new quirks turn up.

Engineering was moving to an AI-driven lifecycle. It was unclear where UX fit, how generated designs would stay on-system, and how UX’s own AI use would grow beyond individual experiments. Leadership, engineering and product each needed a different answer to “how is UX using AI, and how do we know it works?”

Brief: define UX’s role in the lifecycle as modifications to existing steps, and formalize AI adoption across the UX workflow as a structured plan tied to our actual toolchain, without creating a parallel process.

Cyara’s proprietary AI development lifecycle (version 2) already had two design touchpoints, rough mockups at ideation and refined mockups at inception, with a product-lead agent reviewing design output.

On the UX side: a team of three, me, a Senior UI/UX Designer with design sign-off authority, and a UI/UX Developer. The design system lives in Figma and publishes to Storybook as React tokens. Figma Code Connect mapping was about halfway complete under the UX Developer.

The internal workshop deck and the “get started” guide set the ground truth. One correction mattered: mockups sit at ideation and inception, not in Construction as I had first assumed. I rebuilt the proposal around the real stages.

The framing decision was to pitch this to engineering as “strengthen the seats that exist,” because a new gate would have been rejected.

Two findings shaped the adoption plan. First, research synthesis is the highest-leverage, lowest-risk place to start, while usability moderation and persistent research repositories are still beyond current AI tools. Second, Cyara’s app sits behind SSO, so off-the-shelf AI audit tools gave only partial coverage.

In the lifecycle. My proposal makes two changes to existing steps, and they work together:

Practical flow: Product asks UX to start the lifecycle and resume the mockup stage, UX generates mockups with the Figma MCP, and Product attends. I wrote the proposal, a team onboarding guide with an FAQ, and an executive deck for the Chief Product Officer and C-suite.

Adoption plan. Four phases, compressed into three months and followed by a quarterly cycle:

1. FoundationTooling, design-system inputs, ground rules.
2. PilotScoped trials with real metrics.
3. EmbedFold what worked into daily workflow.
4. OptimizeQuarterly review and tuning.

Each audience got its own view: a roadmap and milestones for leadership, pipeline diagrams for engineering, and a phase-to-framework mapping for product.

Research pilot: Claude Enterprise turns raw interview and product briefing notes into structured findings with cited quotes, benchmarked against manual synthesis time.

Audit harness: Playwright with stored session state to get behind login, axe-core for automated WCAG scanning, and Claude for heuristic analysis at scale, in six phases that mirror the lifecycle.

Stays human: route and role scoping, triage of axe-core “incomplete” flags, validating AI-drafted findings against business context, and all screen reader and keyboard testing.

A written proposal, a UI/UX team playbook with FAQ, an executive deck, and an adoption plan as a Word document and a PowerPoint deck, with an appendix on AI for research and a goal statement for the second half of 2026. The key output is a clear answer to “what does UX do in the lifecycle,” in language written for both engineering and product.

The executive deck frames UX as owning two stages, building and guarding AI output, and proposes a 90-day proof of value: baseline, compare, decide, with a parallel design-system track. Pendo analytics are planned from mid-September 2026 through mid-2027 to track sessions, adoption and feature rollout.

In progress

Proposal, onboarding guide, executive deck and adoption plan are written. Alignment with the Engineering Director and the executive review are the next steps. The research pilot is scoped, Code Connect mapping is about halfway, and the Pendo rollout is planned.