跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

figma-design-review

AI-powered design review for Figma components with weighted dual-scoring system. Evaluates Style Guide Implementation (70%) and LLM Metadata Accessibility (30%). For export, hands off to atomic-design skill.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

集成工具Figma

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(7)

  • SKILL.md4.5 KB
  • references/audit-summary-format.md35.6 KB
  • references/checklist.md5.6 KB
  • references/common-issues.md16.0 KB
  • references/examples.md7.3 KB
  • references/scoring-rubric.md8.5 KB
  • SKILL.extended.md14.3 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Figma Design Review Skill

Score Figma component designs with weighted dual-scoring. This skill is PHASE 1 (score components, identify issues, recommend fixes, determine export readiness). Export is PHASE 2, owned by atomic-design (classify level A/M/O, generate files, extract tokens).

Score >= 70? -> Hand off to atomic-design.

When to Use

TriggerAction
Designer selects componentFull design review
"Review this component"Scored report
"What's missing?"Gap analysis
"Is this ready for export?"Export readiness check
Score < 80Improvement roadmap

Weights

DimensionWeightFocus
Style Guide Implementation70%Code quality, consistency, accessibility
LLM Metadata Accessibility30%Documentation for AI code generation

Dimension 1: Style Guide Implementation (70%)

Group (pts)CriterionPoints
Variant Structure (25)Complete variant matrix10
Consistent naming (Size=X, State=Y)5
TypeScript interface defined5
Logical organization5
Token System (25)CSS Variables for colors10
CSS Variables for typography5
CSS Variables for spacing5
Semantic token naming5
Visual Consistency (20)Consistent font-weight5
Consistent border-radius5
Consistent padding/spacing5
No layout artifacts5
Accessibility States (20)Focus state present8
Disabled state6
Hover state4
Touch target >= 44px2
Code Quality (10)No duplication5
Clean conditionals3
Proper defaults2

Dimension 2: LLM Metadata Accessibility (30%)

Group (pts)CriterionPoints
Component Description (20)Primary description10
Use case specified5
Business context5
Searchability (15)Tags present8
Tags comprehensive7
Development Metadata (25)testId5
ariaLabel5
analytics5
category5
level5
Usage Guidelines (20)Do's list7
Don'ts list7
Notes6
Technical Specs (20)Design tokens documented8
Specs (minWidth, etc.)6
A11y requirements6

Score Interpretation

ScoreGradeExport Status
90-100ExcellentReady
80-89GoodReady with notes
70-79AcceptableFix critical first
60-69Needs WorkNot ready
< 60PoorMajor rework

Review Framework

Step 1 - Extract Data: name/structure from Figma; code from get_design_context; screenshot from get_screenshot; metadata from description.

Step 2 - Evaluate Implementation (70%): variant count expected vs actual; token usage check; visual consistency; accessibility states; code quality.

Step 3 - Evaluate LLM Accessibility (30%): description present? tags comprehensive? dev metadata complete? usage guidelines? technical specs?

Step 4 - Calculate:

implementation_score = variant + token + visual + a11y + code
llm_score = desc + search + dev + usage + specs
weighted = (implementation * 0.7) + (llm * 0.3)

Step 5 - Generate Report: strengths (max 6); weaknesses (max 5, each with fix); recommendations by priority; export readiness.

Report Output Format

## Component Evaluation: [Name]

### Style Guide Implementation: **[XX]/100**

**Strengths:**
- [Positive finding]

**Weaknesses:**
- [Issue] -> **Fix:** [Solution]

### LLM Metadata: **[XX]/100**

**Includes:**
- [Present metadata]

**Missing:**
- [Missing metadata]

## Final Weighted Score

| Criterion | Score | Weight | Contribution |
|-----------|-------|--------|--------------|
| Implementation | XX | 70% | XX.X |
| LLM Accessibility | XX | 30% | XX.X |
| **Total** | | | **XX.X/100** |

### Recommendations:
1. [Recommendation] - [explanation]

Key Rules

  • Every weakness MUST include a fix
  • Every issue MUST name specific field
  • Strengths capped at 6
  • Weaknesses capped at 5
  • Recommendations ordered by priority
  • English only

References

FilePurpose
references/audit-summary-format.mdOutput format
references/scoring-rubric.mdScoring criteria
references/common-issues.mdFrequent problems
../atomic-design/SKILL.mdExport skill

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

AID Phase 4 - Development phase. Use for implementing features, TDD practices, code reviews, transitioning from planning to QA.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

AID Phase 0 - Research & discovery. Use for validating problem spaces, identifying stakeholders, defining success metrics, deciding whether to proceed.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

AID Phase 3 - Implementation Planning with consolidation-first approach. Resolves contradictions between PRD and Tech Spec, creates consolidated master document, then breaks down into actionable tasks and populates Jira. Includes sprint planning and risk assessment.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

aid-prd

免费

AID Phase 1 - PRD creation. Use for user stories, acceptance criteria, scoping features, transitioning from discovery to tech spec.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

AID Phase 5 - QA and Release. Use for validating implementations, acceptance tests, preparing releases, deployment, operational readiness.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

AID Phase 2 - Technical Specification. Use for system architecture, API contracts, data models, security architecture, transitioning from PRD to implementation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ilandahan/AID102026年9月23日 更新

查看 ilandahan 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题