Figma Design ReviewCAUTION
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-design-review description: "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." --- # Figma Design Review Skill Runs a structured PM design review — checking that a design meets product requirements, covers all user flows, and is ready for engineering. This is a requirements-and-outcomes review, not an aesthetic critique. > **Not quite this?** Use `figma-design-qa` when you need a strict check against the spec. ## Required Inputs - **Design description or screen summary** - **Original requirements** (PRD snippet, ticket, or acceptance criteria) - **User flow being designed** - **Review stage** (concept / mid-fidelity / pre-handoff final) ## Output Structure ### 1. Review Header Feature, review stage, reviewed by, date. **Overall status:** Approved / Approved with changes / Needs revision ### 2. Requirements Coverage Check | Requirement | Covered? | Notes | |---|---|---| | [Requirement from PRD] | Yes/No/Partial | [Specific observation] | Missing coverage summary: [Requirements not addressed — must resolve before approval] ### 3. User Flow Completeness | Flow step | Designed? | Issues | |---|---|---| | [Step] | Yes/No/Partial | [Issue] | | Error state | Yes/No | | | Empty state | Yes/No | | | Loading state | Yes/No | | ### 4. PM Concerns **[Concern] — Blocking / Should fix / Nice to fix** - What: [Specific observation] - Why it matters: [Business or user impact — not aesthetic preference] - Suggested resolution: [What PM wants to see] ### 5. Open Questions | Question | Owner | Needed by | |---|---|---| | [Question] | Designer/Eng/PM | [Date] | ### 6. Approval Decision Approved / Approved with changes (list) / Needs revision (focus area + next review date) ## Quality Checks - [ ] Every requirement assessed - [ ] All flow states checked (error, empty, loading) - [ ] Concerns are outcome-focused not aesthetic - [ ] Open questions have owners - [ ] Approval status is explicit ## Anti-Patterns - [ ] Do not review a design without a list of requirements to check against — always ask for the PRD, design brief, or acceptance criteria first - [ ] Do not give a vague approval status — the decision must be explicitly "approved", "approved with conditions", or "not approved" - [ ] Do not conflate requirements gaps with UX concerns — track them separately so engineers and designers can act independently - [ ] Do not raise concerns without suggesting what information is needed to resolve them - [ ] Do not skip open questions — unresolved assumptions at review time become bugs after engineering handoff ## Example Trigger Phrases - "Review this Figma design against the requirements" - "Do a PM design review for [feature]" - "Check if this design meets the product spec" - "Is this design ready to hand off to engineering?" - "What is missing from this design before we can build it?"
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-design-review.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 Design Review 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 Design Review 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 Design Review 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.