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
82 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
82 lines
3.1 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: figma-component-audit
|
|
description: "Audit a Figma component library for consistency, coverage gaps, and naming issues. Use when asked to audit components, review a design system, check component consistency, identify missing components, or assess Figma library health. Produces a structured audit report with issues prioritised by impact, naming recommendations, and a fix plan."
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Figma Component Audit Skill
|
|
|
|
Produces a structured audit of a Figma component library — identifying inconsistencies, naming problems, coverage gaps, and prioritised recommendations.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
- **Component list or description** (paste component names or describe what exists)
|
|
- **Product type** (mobile app / web app / desktop / multi-platform)
|
|
- **Design system maturity** (new / growing / mature / legacy)
|
|
- **Primary concern** (optional)
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 1. Audit Summary
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Status | Score |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| Naming consistency | Red/Amber/Green | /10 |
|
|
| Component coverage | | /10 |
|
|
| Variant completeness | | /10 |
|
|
| Documentation | | /10 |
|
|
| Overall health | | /10 |
|
|
|
|
**Verdict:** What is the state of this library and the single most important thing to fix?
|
|
|
|
### 2. Naming Issues
|
|
|
|
For each problem:
|
|
**Issue: [Problem type]**
|
|
- What is happening: [Specific examples]
|
|
- Why it matters: [Impact on designers and developers]
|
|
- Fix: [Exact naming convention to adopt]
|
|
- Examples: Before / After
|
|
|
|
Naming convention to enforce:
|
|
- Components: PascalCase (NavigationBar)
|
|
- Variants: Lowercase with slashes (size/large, state/hover)
|
|
- Pages: All caps (COMPONENTS, FOUNDATIONS)
|
|
|
|
### 3. Coverage Gaps
|
|
|
|
| Missing Component | Priority | Why Needed |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| [Component] | High/Medium/Low | [Use case] |
|
|
|
|
### 4. Variant Completeness Check
|
|
|
|
| Component | Default | Hover | Active | Disabled | Error | Missing |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| [Button] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Active, Error |
|
|
|
|
### 5. Prioritised Fix Plan
|
|
|
|
| # | Fix | Effort | Impact | Do First? |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 | [Fix] | Low/Med/High | High | Yes |
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
- [ ] Naming recommendations have before/after examples
|
|
- [ ] Coverage gaps are relevant to the product type
|
|
- [ ] Fix plan is ordered by impact-to-effort ratio
|
|
- [ ] Variant completeness covers all interactive states
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not flag naming issues without providing a specific, consistent naming convention to adopt
|
|
- [ ] Do not audit only visual consistency — also check for missing interactive states and accessibility compliance
|
|
- [ ] Do not list all issues at equal priority — group by impact (Critical / Major / Minor) so the fix plan is actionable
|
|
- [ ] Do not omit variant completeness — every interactive component must cover all required states
|
|
- [ ] Do not leave coverage gaps without recommending specific missing components to add
|
|
|
|
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
|
- "Audit my Figma component library"
|
|
- "Review our design system for consistency issues"
|
|
- "What components are we missing in our Figma library?"
|
|
- "Our component naming is a mess — help me fix it"
|
|
- "Do a health check on our Figma components" |