Turn a Figma file or design image into a working interface using the project's existing components and design tokens, its shared visual settings. Compare the implementation with the design and report differences, missing states, and parts awaiting backend connections.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Builds UI from a Figma file or a design image so it matches the design, using your project's existing tokens and components.
安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
This skill turns a design into code that matches it. It reads the design at its source, builds with what the project already has, then compares the result against the design before calling it done.
The design decides. Values come from the design file, never from your taste or a pattern you liked elsewhere. A change the design does not show is a deviation, and a deviation is the user's call.
It owns no domain rules. Where the design breaks one, build it as designed and report the conflict with its owner. Contrast is a requirement in better-accessibility and a measurement in better-colors. Focus and semantics are better-accessibility, type is better-typography and spacing and structure are better-layout. Palette is better-colors, copy is better-writing and surfaces, icons and motion are better-ui. Reviewing finished work is interface-review, exploring alternatives is variant and stress testing a component is break.
A Figma link means the Figma MCP. Search the available and deferred tools for figma before saying it is unavailable, since the server often sits under a name you did not expect. A server that lists only an authenticate tool is connected but signed out, so ask the user to authenticate. With no Figma tool at all, ask the user to connect one, and do not build from memory or guesswork meanwhile. figma.md holds which tools to call and what each returns.
A screenshot or exported image has no values to read. Sizes are ratios to the capture, so state the scale you assumed and treat every measurement as an estimate. Ask for the Figma link when one exists, since it replaces the whole estimate.
Scope the run to the frames named. Frames that show the same thing at different widths are one piece at several breakpoints, not separate pieces.
This step is done when you hold a screenshot of every frame in scope and its values for spacing, size, radius, color, type and the components used. From a Figma file they are exact. From an image they are estimates at the scale you stated.
Read the project's tokens and component library before writing anything. Then map every design value to what exists:
| In the design | In code |
|---|---|
| A bound variable or style | The token with the same name or the same value |
| A raw value that equals a token | That token |
| A raw value with no token | The nearest existing token, listed in the report as rounded |
| A component instance | The project's component of that name, with the variant the design shows |
| A component instance with no project equivalent | Plain markup in place, listed as a deviation, and ask whether a component should exist |
| A one-off group of layers | Plain markup in place, not a new component |
Never add a token, a component variant or an arbitrary value to hit a number. Stop and ask which way to go when rounding would visibly change the design. That means more than 2px on spacing or size, or a color landing on a different step.
Check what data the design needs and wire it to what exists. Where the backend for part of it does not exist yet, build that part as UI fed by props and name it in the report as unwired.
Implement the frames, the breakpoints the frames define and the states the file draws, such as hover, empty or error. A state the file does not draw is not yours to design. Leave it to the existing component's default and list it as missing.
Leave everything around the piece as it was. No neighbouring copy edits, no icon swaps, no "while I was here" cleanups. A diff wider than the design is the most common way this goes wrong.
Render the build at each frame's width beside the design screenshot and walk it element by element. Compare the properties Read the design at its source collected. "Gap is 12px, design is 16px" is a finding. "Feels a bit tight" is not.
With a browser at hand, screenshot each width and compare. Without one, hand over the local URL with the widths to check and say the comparison is unverified. Do not report a match you did not look at.
Fix every mismatch you caused, then compare again. This step is done when every remaining difference is a rounding or a question.
| Element | Design | Built | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Card padding | 20px | p-5 | Matches |
| Title size | 15px | text-sm, 14px | Rounded to token |
| Badge | Filled pill | Text label | Deviates, asked: no badge component exists |
Then list, one line each, and omit a list with nothing in it:
Close by saying where the build is running and at which widths you compared.
| You notice | Fix |
|---|---|
| "Figma isn't connected" written before any tool search | Search the tools for figma first |
| Values in code that appear in no Figma response, only in the screenshot | Read them from the design context |
An arbitrary utility such as w-[343px] or a raw hex in the diff | Map it to a token, or ask if rounding shows |
| A new file under the components directory for a frame that is not a component | Inline it as plain markup |
| A loading or error branch the design never drew | Remove it, keep the default and list it as missing |
| Files in the diff that no frame touches | Revert them |
| A contrast or focus change the design does not show | Restore the design and report the conflict with its owner |
| A comparison claimed with no screenshot of the build | Render each frame width, or say it is unverified |
| Hard-coded sample data with no mention in the report | List it under Unwired |
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
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。
Review and fix interface accessibility against WCAG 2.2, a web accessibility standard. Check keyboard navigation, focus, screen reader labels, forms, motion, and zoom, then report failures with their criteria and implement fixes using the project's existing styling system.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Build and review interface color systems with palettes, format conversions, and semantic tokens that name colors by purpose. Measure foreground and background contrast, and identify inconsistent themes, misused color roles, and colors outside the supported range.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review an interface across accessibility, layout, writing, typography, color, and visual polish. It coordinates specialist skills, combines evidence from code and rendered screens, and produces one report with findings ranked by their impact on users.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Review and improve interface grouping, alignment, spacing, and responsive structure. Check whether content and actions remain accessible when screens resize, text grows in translation, zoom increases, or the layout switches to right-to-left reading.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Set and review how interface text renders, including font loading, size hierarchy, line spacing, wrapping, truncation, and punctuation. Apply fixes within the existing styling system and check how realistic content behaves across different widths.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。
Refine interface surfaces, icons, and motion with specific values for corners, shadows, alignment, and transitions. Preserve the project's existing design conventions while identifying visual inconsistencies, touch interaction problems, and missing alternatives for reduced motion.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。