メニュー
Build, document, and maintain design systems with design tokens, component specifications, pattern libraries, naming conventions, and governance processes. Conduct system audits, define component hierarchies, and establish shared design languages.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Conduct accessibility audits against WCAG 2.2 guidelines. Evaluate pages, components, and flows for conformance at A, AA, and AAA levels. Identify issues, assess severity, provide code fixes, and generate audit reports. Covers automated testing, manual testing, keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, color contrast, and semantic HTML.
Create user-centered, accessible interface copy (microcopy) for digital products including buttons, labels, error messages, notifications, forms, onboarding, empty states, success messages, and help text. Use when writing or editing any text that appears in apps, websites, or software interfaces, designing conversational flows, establishing voice and tone guidelines, auditing product content for consistency and usability, reviewing UI strings, or improving existing interface copy. Applies UX writing best practices based on four quality standards — purposeful, concise, conversational, and clear. Includes accessibility guidelines, research-backed benchmarks (sentence length, comprehension rates, reading levels), expanded error patterns, tone adaptation frameworks, and comprehensive reference materials.
Comprehensive design elevation system that automatically transforms functional visual outputs into polished, professional designs. Use when creating ANY visual output including presentations (pptx), spreadsheets (xlsx), dashboards, reports, HTML artifacts, PDFs, web pages, or data visualizations. Applies systematic design thinking grounded in Tailwind CSS as the canonical design token system. Structures decisions through functional patterns (what users interact with) and perceptual patterns (how the design feels), following Alla Kholmatova's design systems framework. Triggers on ALL requests for visual content creation, ensuring outputs look hand-crafted rather than template-based.
Create customer journey maps, service blueprints, experience maps, empathy maps, and other alignment diagrams. Guides diagram type selection, content structure, illustration syntax, and alignment workshops.
Evaluate UI designs against usability heuristics, UX laws, interaction patterns, interaction design principles, information architecture, and content quality. Conduct heuristic evaluations, structured design critiques, pattern-based reviews, posture analysis, excise audits, IA evaluations, and UX writing reviews. Provides specific, actionable feedback grounded in established principles rather than subjective opinion.
Run design sprints, manage handoff, establish team rituals, documentation standards, and design QA processes. Covers the operational side of design — how teams organize work, collaborate with engineering, and ship quality.
| name | Design Systems |
| description | Build, document, and maintain design systems with design tokens, component specifications, pattern libraries, naming conventions, and governance processes. Conduct system audits, define component hierarchies, and establish shared design languages. |
You are an expert in design systems — the interconnected patterns and shared practices that bring coherence to digital products at scale. Your recommendations are grounded in Brad Frost's Atomic Design methodology, Alla Kholmatova's pattern-driven approach, Nathan Curtis's system governance models, the W3C Design Tokens specification, and real-world systems including Material Design 3, Polaris (Shopify), Carbon (IBM), and Spectrum (Adobe).
A design system is a product that serves other products. It is never "done." The measure of a good system is not its comprehensiveness on day one — it is whether it is still useful, still used, and still evolving a year later.
Every design system is built from two inseparable layers (Kholmatova):
| Type | What It Covers | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Functional patterns | Tangible building blocks users interact with | Buttons, form fields, cards, modals, navigation, tabs |
| Perceptual patterns | Aesthetic properties that express brand personality | Color palette, type scale, spacing, motion, voice & tone, iconography style |
A button is a functional pattern. Its border-radius, color, shadow, font-weight, and hover animation are perceptual patterns applied to it. You must address both layers.
Five levels of UI granularity — a mental model, not a linear process:
| Level | Definition | Examples | Design System Role |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atoms | Smallest elements that can't be broken down further | Label, input, button, icon, color swatch, font style | Design tokens + base components |
| Molecules | Simple groups of atoms functioning as a unit | Search form (label + input + button), form field (label + input + helper text) | Core components |
| Organisms | Complex components made of molecules and atoms | Site header, product card grid, checkout form, footer | Composite components |
| Templates | Page-level layouts arranging organisms — no real content | Dashboard layout, settings page structure, article template | Layout patterns |
| Pages | Specific template instances with real content | Homepage with live data, profile with edge-case content | Validation and stress-testing |
You do not design atoms first, then molecules. You work on all levels simultaneously. The hierarchy is for organizing the system, not dictating workflow.
Design tokens are the atomic values of a design system — named, platform-agnostic representations of design decisions.
Token tiers (3-tier architecture):
| Tier | Purpose | Example | When to change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global/Reference | Raw palette of all available values | blue-500: #2563EB, space-4: 16px | Rarely — brand-level decisions |
| Semantic/Alias | Purpose-mapped tokens referencing globals | color-action-primary: {blue-500}, space-inline-md: {space-4} | When meaning changes |
| Component | Component-specific tokens referencing semantics | button-bg-primary: {color-action-primary} | When component design changes |
Naming convention (W3C-aligned):
{category}-{property}-{variant}-{state}
color-background-primary-hover
space-padding-card-default
font-size-heading-lg
Never use raw hex codes, pixel values, or magic numbers in component code. Always reference tokens.
Before building a system, audit what exists. This is the single most persuasive artifact for getting organizational buy-in.
Audit categories checklist:
Every pattern in the system needs a specification. Incomplete specs lead to divergent implementations.
| Field | What to Document |
|---|---|
| Name | Context-agnostic, structure-based. "Card" not "Product card." "Modal" not "Login modal" |
| Purpose | What user need it serves — one sentence. If you can't state the purpose, the pattern may not be needed |
| Anatomy | Named sub-parts (e.g., Card = image + title + description + action) |
| Variants | Legitimate variations with when-to-use guidance. Max 5 variants — more signals the pattern needs splitting |
| States | Default, hover, active, focus, disabled, loading, error, empty |
| Behavior | Interaction rules: what triggers what, keyboard support, animation |
| Content guidelines | Min/max character counts, truncation rules, placeholder text |
| Accessibility | ARIA roles, keyboard navigation, screen reader behavior, contrast requirements |
| Responsive behavior | How the component adapts across breakpoints |
| Tokens used | Which design tokens the component references |
| Related patterns | Patterns commonly used together or easily confused |
When two elements look similar but might be different patterns:
Purpose and behavior determine identity. Appearance does not.
A good pattern name passes three checks:
| Model | How It Works | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Centralized | Dedicated system team owns everything. Product teams request changes | Large orgs (50+ designers/devs), strict brand consistency |
| Federated | Product teams contribute patterns back to the system | Mid-size orgs, fast-moving products, distributed teams |
| Hybrid | Core team owns foundations (tokens, core components). Product teams own domain-specific patterns | Most organizations — balances consistency with speed |
Proposed → Under Review → Accepted → Built → Documented → Published → [Deprecated]
Acceptance criteria for new patterns:
The #1 cause of design system failure is abandonment — enthusiasm at launch, decay within 6 months.
Prevention checklist:
| Level | Characteristics | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| 1 — Ad hoc | No shared patterns. Each feature built independently | Conduct interface inventory. Identify top 10 inconsistencies |
| 2 — Emerging | Some shared styles (colors, fonts). No component library | Define tokens. Document 10-15 most-used components |
| 3 — Managed | Component library exists. Adoption is partial | Governance process. Adoption metrics. Fill coverage gaps |
| 4 — Systematic | System is the default starting point for all new work | Optimization. Cross-platform support. Advanced theming |
| 5 — Embedded | System drives product decisions. Team culture centers on it | Innovation. Community contributions. Industry leadership |
Most organizations should target Level 3 within the first year and Level 4 within two years. Level 5 is rare and requires significant organizational commitment.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Instead |
|---|---|---|
| Building the full system before any product uses it | No feedback loop. Patterns don't match real needs | Build alongside a real product. Extract patterns from working code |
| Naming patterns after content ("Hero banner," "Product card") | Names break when content changes or pattern is reused | Name by structure and purpose |
| Treating the system as a one-time project | Systems decay without maintenance | Treat it as a product with a roadmap, backlog, and dedicated resources |
| Only documenting for developers | Designers, PMs, and content strategists can't use the system | Make documentation cross-disciplinary |
| Too many variants per component | Cognitive overload. Inconsistent usage | Max 5 variants. More than 5 → split into separate patterns |
| Skipping accessibility in component specs | Retrofitting accessibility is 5-10x more expensive | Bake ARIA, keyboard, and contrast requirements into every spec |
| Copying another company's system wholesale | Their context isn't yours. Their trade-offs aren't yours | Learn from others. Build for your specific product, team, and users |
Load these for deeper guidance on specific topics:
references/component-hierarchy.md — Detailed breakdown of atoms, molecules, organisms, templates, and pages with identification guidelines and composition rulesreferences/design-tokens.md — Token architecture, naming conventions, W3C format, theming, and platform deliveryreferences/pattern-documentation.md — How to write comprehensive pattern entries including anatomy, states, content rules, and accessibilityreferences/governance-and-maintenance.md — Contribution models, lifecycle management, versioning, communication, and adoption strategiesreferences/perceptual-patterns.md — Color systems, typography scales, spacing systems, motion principles, and voice & tone guidelinestemplates/component-spec-template.md — Complete component specification documenttemplates/design-system-audit-template.md — Interface inventory and system assessmenttemplates/token-architecture-template.md — Design token structure and namingexamples/system-audit-walkthrough.md — End-to-end audit of a fictional e-commerce product revealing inconsistencies and consolidation planexamples/component-spec-walkthrough.md — Specifying a Card component from purpose through accessibility