メニュー
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.
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Apply prioritisation frameworks (RICE, MoSCoW, Kano, ICE, Opportunity Scoring) to rank features and backlog items. Use when asked to prioritise features, rank a backlog, decide what to build next, or evaluate tradeoffs between competing ideas. Produces a scored, ranked feature list with framework-specific tables, recommended build order, deprioritised items, and assumptions made.
Generate structured developer handoff annotations for a Figma screen or component. Use when asked to write Figma annotations, create dev handoff notes, document a Figma design for developers, or write specs for a screen. Produces a complete annotation set covering interactions, states, spacing, accessibility, and edge cases.
Write a structured design brief for a Figma design task from a product requirement or feature request. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design spec for Figma, turn a PRD into design requirements, or brief a designer on what to build in Figma. Produces a brief with goals, scope, user flows, components needed, constraints, and success criteria.
Runs a PM-perspective design critique focused on product outcomes and user goals, not aesthetics. Use when asked for a PM design critique, a product review of a Figma design, or feedback from a product perspective without needing to be a designer. Produces structured outcome-based feedback tied to user goals, business metrics, and requirement coverage.
Runs a pre-handoff QA checklist on a Figma design before it goes to engineering. Use when asked to QA a Figma design, do a pre-handoff check, or validate a Figma file is ready to build. Produces a structured QA report covering file hygiene, component usage, accessibility, and handoff readiness with explicit pass/fail status per item. Optimised for Opus 4.7 and newer models.
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.
| 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. |
Produces a structured audit of a Figma component library — identifying inconsistencies, naming problems, coverage gaps, and prioritised recommendations.
| 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?
For each problem: Issue: [Problem type]
Naming convention to enforce:
| Missing Component | Priority | Why Needed |
|---|---|---|
| [Component] | High/Medium/Low | [Use case] |
| Component | Default | Hover | Active | Disabled | Error | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Button] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Active, Error |
| # | Fix | Effort | Impact | Do First? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Fix] | Low/Med/High | High | Yes |
