Files

T

Mohit fb85a1cb55 fix(skills): add Anti-Patterns and fix descriptions for remaining skills (batch 3)

Processed 27 skills: teaching-lesson-plan through feature-prioritisation and all figma skills.
Added Anti-Patterns sections to all 27 skills.
Added Quality Checks section to financial-due-diligence (was missing entirely).
Converted user-research-synthesis Quality Standards to binary checkbox format.
Rewrote descriptions for figma-design-critique-pm, figma-design-qa, figma-design-review,
team-health-check, and user-interview-synthesis.

https://claude.ai/code/session_01MuGKn3a3Gbqoe8uM5Lmuqt

2026-06-08 13:01:36 +00:00

3.0 KiB

Raw Blame History

name, description

name	description
figma-design-review	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?"

3.0 KiB Raw Blame History