Claude
572b8acf8c
Make the library multi-platform without duplicating content. Each skills/<name>/SKILL.md body remains the single source of truth; a new generator renders platform-ready exports from it. - scripts/build-exports.mjs — dependency-free Node generator with a PLATFORMS registry so new platforms (Gemini, Cursor, …) are a few lines. Ships ChatGPT exports at exports/chatgpt/<bundle>/<skill>/SYSTEM_PROMPT.md (172 skills), plus generated index READMEs. Supports --platform and --check. - exports/ — generated ChatGPT system prompts, ready to paste into a Custom GPT. - .github/workflows/check-generated.yml — fails a PR if exports or web/skills.json drift from the source skills. - README "Works With" now documents the ready-to-use exports and regen command. - CHANGELOG + SKILL-AUTHORING-STANDARD note the generated artifacts. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px
2.6 KiB
2.6 KiB
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?"