All templates
AI & Technology

Developer Content Filter False Positive Impact Assessment

Assess how content filter false positives affect developer productivity, workflow disruption, and tool adoption decisions. Designed for developer experience researchers and tooling teams seeking actionable improvement priorities from software practitioners.

Sample questions

A preview of what’s in the template. Every question is editable before you launch.

22 questions · ~10 min
Q01
Message

Welcome! This survey explores your recent experiences with content filters and false positives in developer tools. Your participation is voluntary, and you may stop at any time. There are no right or wrong answers—we are interested in your honest opinions. All responses are confidential and will be reported in aggregate only. The survey takes approximately 10 minutes. Please answer based on the last 30 days and omit any sensitive or proprietary data.

Q02
Multiple Choice

In the last 30 days, have you used any developer tools that enforce content moderation or safety filters?

  • Yes, in the last 30 days
  • No, not in the last 30 days
Q03
Multiple Choice

Which types of developer tools with content filters have you used in the last 30 days? Select all that apply.

  • AI code assistants (e.g., coding copilots)
  • Code hosting/PR checks (e.g., repo content policies)
  • Package registries with policy checks (e.g., npm, PyPI)
  • Documentation portals or knowledge bases
  • Q&A forums or developer communities
  • CI/CD or security policy gates
  • Other (please specify)
Q04
Multiple Choice

Why haven't you used developer tools with content filters in the last 30 days? Select all that apply.

  • None of my current tools apply content filters
  • I avoid tools that include filters
  • Company policy restricts such tools
  • I'm unsure which tools include filters
  • Other (please specify)
Q05
Opinion Scale

When it comes to content filters in developer tools, which trade-off do you prefer?

Scale: 17
Min:Minimize false negatives (stricter filtering)Max:Minimize false positives (more permissive filtering)
Q06
AI Interview

Based on your responses in this survey, please share any additional thoughts or experiences about false positives or content filter design in developer tools.

Q07
Dropdown

What is your primary role?

  • Backend developer
  • Frontend developer
  • Full-stack developer
  • DevOps/SRE
  • ML/AI engineer
  • Security engineer
  • Engineering manager
  • QA/Testing
  • Other
Q08
Message

Thank you for your time. Your feedback will help improve content filter design in developer tools and reduce the impact of false positives on developer workflows.

Q09
Opinion Scale

How often did you encounter false positives from these content filters in the last 30 days?

Scale: 15
Min:NeverMax:Very often
Q10
Opinion Scale

If developer tools you use introduced content filters, how disruptive do you expect false positives would be to your workflow?

Scale: 17
Min:Not at all disruptiveMax:Extremely disruptive
Q11
Multiple Choice

In your view, what most often causes false positives in developer tool content filters? Select all that apply.

  • Ambiguous or broad policy definitions
  • Overly sensitive detection models
  • Missing contextual signals (e.g., file type, repo trust)
  • Poor or unrepresentative training examples
  • Misclassifying code vs. natural language
  • Locale or language issues
  • Unclear UI messaging or guidance
  • Other (please specify)
Q12
Dropdown

How many years of professional software development experience do you have?

  • Less than 1 year
  • 1–3 years
  • 4–6 years
  • 7–10 years
  • 11–15 years
  • 16–20 years
  • More than 20 years
Q13
Opinion Scale

Overall, how disruptive were the false positives you encountered in the last 30 days?

Scale: 17
Min:Not at all disruptiveMax:Extremely disruptive
Q14
Multiple Choice

What informs your expectations about content filter false positives? Select all that apply.

  • Teammates' experiences
  • Industry news or reports
  • Past experiences in other tools
  • Social media or forums
  • Vendor documentation or release notes
  • Other (please specify)
Q15
Ranking

Rank the following improvements by how much they would reduce the impact of false positives. Place the most impactful improvement first.

  1. Clearer policy definitions in tools
  2. Better detection models (precision/recall tuning)
  3. Use more context (file type, repo trust, role)
  4. Faster and more transparent appeal or override process
  5. Granular admin and user controls
  6. Improved UI messaging and guidance
Drag to rank
Q16
Dropdown

What is your organization size?

  • 1 (just me)
  • 2–10
  • 11–50
  • 51–200
  • 201–1,000
  • 1,001–5,000
  • 5,001+
Q17
Long Text

Briefly describe your most recent false positive from a content filter in the last 30 days. Please omit any sensitive or proprietary data.

Q18
Dropdown

Where are you primarily located?

  • North America
  • Europe
  • Latin America
  • Asia
  • Africa
  • Oceania
  • Prefer not to say
Q19
Dropdown

Approximately how long did it take to resolve your most recent false positive?

  • Less than 5 minutes
  • 5–15 minutes
  • 16–30 minutes
  • 31–60 minutes
  • 1–2 hours
  • More than 2 hours
  • It was never resolved
Q20
Multiple Choice

Which programming languages do you use most often? Select all that apply.

  • JavaScript/TypeScript
  • Python
  • Java/Kotlin
  • C/C++
  • C#/.NET
  • Go
  • Ruby
  • Rust
  • Swift/Objective-C
  • PHP
  • SQL
  • Other
Q21
Multiple Choice

After encountering the false positive, what actions did you take? Select all that apply.

  • Submitted an appeal or requested a review
  • Reworded or reformatted content
  • Used a different tool or channel
  • Waited and retried later
  • Asked a teammate/admin with different access
  • Abandoned the task
  • Other (please specify)
Q22
Ranking

Rank the top 3 effects you experienced from false positives. Place the highest-impact effect first.

  1. Lost time
  2. Context switching
  3. Blocked release or review
  4. Lower code quality or shortcuts
  5. Frustration or stress
  6. Team coordination overhead
Drag to rank

What’s included

  • AI follow-ups

    Adaptive probes on open-ended answers that pull out detail a static form would miss.

  • Attention checks

    Built-in safeguards against rushed answers and low-quality respondents.

  • AI-drafted copy

    Wording, ordering, and branching written by the AI — tuned to your research goal.

  • Auto report

    Themes, quotes, and a plain-English summary write themselves once responses come in.

Ready to launch?

Open this template in the editor. Every part is yours to change before the first respondent sees it.

Related templates

More studies from the same category.

See all
AI & Technology

AR Virtual Try-On Realism & Purchase Confidence Study

Measures perceived realism, fit accuracy, and purchase confidence for augmented reality try-on features. Designed for e-commerce UX researchers seeking to identify AR experience gaps that drive returns and reduce conversion.

View template
AI & Technology

Creator AI Adoption, Ethics & Disclosure Survey

Measures AI tool adoption rates, usage barriers, quality-speed tradeoffs, and credit/disclosure norms among media creators across disciplines. Suitable for creative industry researchers and platform teams studying the creator-AI relationship.

View template
AI & Technology

AI Changelog Clarity & Adoption Impact Survey

Measures how users perceive the clarity, usefulness, and behavioral impact of AI product changelogs. Designed for product and developer experience teams seeking to optimize release communication and drive feature adoption.

View template
AI & Technology

AI Bug Bounty: Scope, Fairness & Incentive Evaluation

An internal stakeholder survey evaluating scope clarity, decision fairness, and incentive effectiveness in your AI bug bounty program over the past 6 months to guide program improvements.

View template
AI & Technology

AI Feature Adoption & Value Perception Survey

Measures user interest, perceived value, adoption barriers, and willingness to pay for AI-powered product features. Designed for SaaS product teams prioritizing their AI roadmap based on user feedback.

View template
AI & Technology

Flight Booking Chatbot Usability & Trust Survey

Evaluates how well an airline or travel site's AI chatbot handles real booking, change, and support tasks — covering task completion, trust, and where users bail out to a human. An AI follow-up interview reconstructs exactly what happened in the respondent's most recent chatbot session, not just how they'd rate it in hindsight.

View template