Mohit
affae033fe
Propagates Anti-Patterns sections, description rewrites, Required Inputs additions, and Quality Checks format fixes from skills/ to matching plugin SKILL.md copies. https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt
76 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
76 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: figma-design-review
|
|
description: "Runs a structured PM design review against product requirements. Use when asked to review a Figma design, check a design against requirements, or assess whether a design meets the product spec. Produces a requirements coverage check, UX concerns, open questions, and an explicit approval status — approved, approved with conditions, or not approved."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Figma Design Review Skill
|
|
|
|
Runs a structured PM design review — checking that a design meets product requirements, covers all user flows, and is ready for engineering. This is a requirements-and-outcomes review, not an aesthetic critique.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
- **Design description or screen summary**
|
|
- **Original requirements** (PRD snippet, ticket, or acceptance criteria)
|
|
- **User flow being designed**
|
|
- **Review stage** (concept / mid-fidelity / pre-handoff final)
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 1. Review Header
|
|
Feature, review stage, reviewed by, date.
|
|
**Overall status:** Approved / Approved with changes / Needs revision
|
|
|
|
### 2. Requirements Coverage Check
|
|
|
|
| Requirement | Covered? | Notes |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| [Requirement from PRD] | Yes/No/Partial | [Specific observation] |
|
|
|
|
Missing coverage summary: [Requirements not addressed — must resolve before approval]
|
|
|
|
### 3. User Flow Completeness
|
|
|
|
| Flow step | Designed? | Issues |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| [Step] | Yes/No/Partial | [Issue] |
|
|
| Error state | Yes/No | |
|
|
| Empty state | Yes/No | |
|
|
| Loading state | Yes/No | |
|
|
|
|
### 4. PM Concerns
|
|
|
|
**[Concern] — Blocking / Should fix / Nice to fix**
|
|
- What: [Specific observation]
|
|
- Why it matters: [Business or user impact — not aesthetic preference]
|
|
- Suggested resolution: [What PM wants to see]
|
|
|
|
### 5. Open Questions
|
|
|
|
| Question | Owner | Needed by |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| [Question] | Designer/Eng/PM | [Date] |
|
|
|
|
### 6. Approval Decision
|
|
Approved / Approved with changes (list) / Needs revision (focus area + next review date)
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
- [ ] Every requirement assessed
|
|
- [ ] All flow states checked (error, empty, loading)
|
|
- [ ] Concerns are outcome-focused not aesthetic
|
|
- [ ] Open questions have owners
|
|
- [ ] Approval status is explicit
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not review a design without a list of requirements to check against — always ask for the PRD, design brief, or acceptance criteria first
|
|
- [ ] Do not give a vague approval status — the decision must be explicitly "approved", "approved with conditions", or "not approved"
|
|
- [ ] Do not conflate requirements gaps with UX concerns — track them separately so engineers and designers can act independently
|
|
- [ ] Do not raise concerns without suggesting what information is needed to resolve them
|
|
- [ ] Do not skip open questions — unresolved assumptions at review time become bugs after engineering handoff
|
|
|
|
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
|
- "Review this Figma design against the requirements"
|
|
- "Do a PM design review for [feature]"
|
|
- "Check if this design meets the product spec"
|
|
- "Is this design ready to hand off to engineering?"
|
|
- "What is missing from this design before we can build it?" |