Figma Component AuditCAUTION
1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-
Overview
1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-
8d32d25aa3f5OBSERVED · 2026-10-12What it tells the agent
The instruction file, verbatim from the audited commit — this is the text the model reads, and the surface the audit's instruction layer examines. Quoted here so you can judge it without cloning anything.
--- 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." --- # Figma Component Audit Skill Produces a structured audit of a Figma component library — identifying inconsistencies, naming problems, coverage gaps, and prioritised recommendations. ## Required Inputs - **Component list or description** (paste component names or describe what exists) - **Product type** (mobile app / web app / desktop / multi-platform) - **Design system maturity** (new / growing / mature / legacy) - **Primary concern** (optional) ## Output Structure ### 1. Audit Summary | 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? ### 2. Naming Issues For each problem: **Issue: [Problem type]** - What is happening: [Specific examples] - Why it matters: [Impact on designers and developers] - Fix: [Exact naming convention to adopt] - Examples: Before / After Naming convention to enforce: - Components: PascalCase (NavigationBar) - Variants: Lowercase with slashes (size/large, state/hover) - Pages: All caps (COMPONENTS, FOUNDATIONS) ### 3. Coverage Gaps | Missing Component | Priority | Why Needed | |---|---|---| | [Component] | High/Medium/Low | [Use case] | ### 4. Variant Completeness Check | Component | Default | Hover | Active | Disabled | Error | Missing | |---|---|---|---|---|---|---| | [Button] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Active, Error | ### 5. Prioritised Fix Plan | # | Fix | Effort | Impact | Do First? | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | [Fix] | Low/Med/High | High | Yes | ## Quality Checks - [ ] Naming recommendations have before/after examples - [ ] Coverage gaps are relevant to the product type - [ ] Fix plan is ordered by impact-to-effort ratio - [ ] Variant completeness covers all interactive states ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not flag naming issues without providing a specific, consistent naming convention to adopt - [ ] Do not audit only visual consistency — also check for missing interactive states and accessibility compliance - [ ] Do not list all issues at equal priority — group by impact (Critical / Major / Minor) so the fix plan is actionable - [ ] Do not omit variant completeness — every interactive component must cover all required states - [ ] Do not leave coverage gaps without recommending specific missing components to add ## Example Trigger Phrases - "Audit my Figma component library" - "Review our design system for consistency issues" - "What components are we missing in our Figma library?" - "Our component naming is a mess — help me fix it" - "Do a health check on our Figma components"
Trust audit
CAUTIONgrade B · trust 89/100 Install with care. The audit found things worth knowing before you trust its output.
| Layer | What it checks | Result |
|---|---|---|
| L0 | Provenance & inventory | WARN |
| L1 | Static analysis of the code | NA |
| L2 | Instruction surface (what it tells the agent) | PASS |
| L3 | Class-specific surface | PASS |
| L4 | Behavioural (sandbox) | SKIPPED |
What the source does
- Filesystem
- none-observed
- Network
- none-observed
- Shell
- none-observed
- Dependencies
- pinned
- Secrets in source
- none-found
Findings (5)
templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md
templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/discovery-interview-guide/SKILL.md
templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/job-story-mapper/SKILL.md
templates/pm-discovery-agent/skills/user-interview-synthesis/SKILL.md
templates/pm-launch-agent/skills/content-calendar/SKILL.md
Gates applied: no_behavioural_pass.
8d32d25aa3f5full audit observations/trust-audit/skill/mohitagw15856__figma-component-audit.json · Report an issue / request a re-scanAudit history
Every audit this skill has had.
| Date | Source | Verdict | Grade | Score | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-12 | 8d32d25aa3f5 | CAUTION | B | 89 | first audit |
Questions
What does the Figma Component Audit skill do?
1255 professional Agent Skills for Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor & Codex — PRDs, postmortems, leases, medical bills, layoffs, go-bags, new countries. Plain markdown, MIT, in Anthropic's plugin directory. Plus a typed decision layer: which skill, is it safe, ship or slip. Free in-browser or npx pm-
Is Figma Component Audit safe to install?
With care. The audit graded it B (89/100) and found 5 things worth knowing before you trust this skill, listed below with the exact line each was found on.
What can Figma Component Audit access on my machine?
The audit observed no filesystem, network or shell use at all in its source.
How current is this page?
The grade is for one exact copy of the source (8d32d25aa3f5), read on 2026-10-12. The repository is watched, and a new audit runs when it changes — this is the first audit.