mohitagw15856
513e1d3ce7
- Synced 97 existing skill SKILL.md files from skills/ to their plugin bundle copies - Added 7 new skills to plugin bundles: - seo-content-brief, media-pitch -> pm-gtm - tax-planning-checklist -> pm-finance - change-management-plan -> pm-hr - sales-forecasting-model -> pm-sales - workshop-facilitation-guide -> pm-operations - teaching-lesson-plan -> pm-cross Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
76 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
76 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: design-handoff-brief
|
|
description: "Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Design Handoff Brief Skill
|
|
|
|
Produce a design brief that sets designers up for success — grounding them in user context and constraints before they open Figma, not after they've gone in the wrong direction.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **Feature brief or PRD** (even rough notes work)
|
|
- **Designer's name or team** (for personalisation)
|
|
- **Technical constraints** (any engineering limitations already known)
|
|
- **Timeline** (when does design need to be done?)
|
|
|
|
## What Designers Actually Need (and PMs Often Skip)
|
|
- The user's goal, not the feature name
|
|
- The emotional state of the user at this moment in the journey
|
|
- What success looks like — how will we know the design worked?
|
|
- Constraints: technical, legal, brand, accessibility
|
|
- Edge cases that must be handled
|
|
- What we're explicitly NOT solving for
|
|
|
|
## Process
|
|
1. Read the feature brief or PRD provided
|
|
2. Extract user goal (reframe from feature language to user outcome language)
|
|
3. Identify constraints — technical limitations, brand guidelines, accessibility requirements
|
|
4. List edge cases the design must handle
|
|
5. Define success criteria the design should be evaluated against
|
|
6. Write a "not in scope" section to prevent scope creep in design
|
|
7. **Validate** — Confirm every edge case listed is specific enough to design for, and every out-of-scope item is concrete enough to say "no" to
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### Design Brief: [Feature Name]
|
|
|
|
**User Goal:** (in the user's words, not ours)
|
|
"When I [situation], I want to [motivation] so that I can [outcome]."
|
|
|
|
**Context & Emotional State:**
|
|
[Where is the user in their journey? What are they feeling? What just happened?]
|
|
|
|
**Design Success Criteria:**
|
|
- [Criterion 1 — measurable where possible]
|
|
- [Criterion 2]
|
|
- [Criterion 3]
|
|
|
|
**Constraints:**
|
|
- Technical: [limitations engineering has flagged]
|
|
- Brand: [relevant brand guidelines]
|
|
- Accessibility: [WCAG level required, any specific requirements]
|
|
- Legal/Compliance: [if applicable]
|
|
|
|
**Edge Cases to Design For:**
|
|
- [Edge case 1]
|
|
- [Edge case 2]
|
|
- [Edge case 3]
|
|
|
|
**Explicitly Out of Scope:**
|
|
- [What we are NOT solving in this design iteration]
|
|
|
|
**Reference Material:**
|
|
- User research: [link]
|
|
- Existing patterns: [Figma component library link]
|
|
- Competitor examples: [links if relevant]
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
|
|
- [ ] User goal is written in user language (not feature/product language)
|
|
- [ ] At least one edge case covers an error or failure state
|
|
- [ ] Success criteria are measurable or observable (not "looks good")
|
|
- [ ] Out-of-scope section names at least one thing that might seem in scope but isn't
|
|
- [ ] Technical constraints are specific enough for an engineer to confirm
|