figma-review
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub
Independently review a running interface against a design reference (Figma frames, mockups attached to the ticket, or already shipped neighbouring screens), using measured properties, geometry, states, accessibility and layout invariants. Despite its name it runs with or without Figma. Use for design review of a change visible in the UI, without reading product source code or implementing corrections.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Greg-Klein/implementation-harnessword for word, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- SkotAlexsander/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 16, 2026
- ai-champions-hub/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 4, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- Greg-Klein/implementation-harness★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- ai-champions-hub/skills★ 2same name
- SkotAlexsander/skills★ 1same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository13 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- clarify-specSkill
- collect-evidenceSkill
- document-changeSkill
- gh-github-apiSkill
- gitlab-ticketsSkill
- glab-gitlab-apiSkill
- howSkill
- review-changeSkill
- self-checkSkill
- unslopSkill
- whySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 12
Read a supplied setup recipe to reach the state, but inspect its simulation assumptions.
- Distinctive: line 18
No product source reading, code edits, service startup, user questioning or publication.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Design review
Input: application URL, setup recipe, observation/correction scope, authoritative decisions, and whatever reference exists: Figma frames, ticket mockups, .claude/tasks/design-reference.md, viewports, locales, consumer routes. When .claude/tasks/review-guide.md exists, read it and apply review guide. It is a task file, not product source. Return measured comparisons, findings that each cite their reference, coverage, unverified cells and reproducible observations for QA. The caller owns report formats and final verdict policy.
- Pick the reference level with reference-levels.md and declare it. For Figma sources read the first part of read-design.md, "Reading a Figma design".
- Build your own inventory from that reference and the brief, and write it down where the caller says, before reading the developer's measurements, captures or conclusions. A caller's inventory or style list never feeds or bounds yours.
- Read a supplied setup recipe to reach the state, but inspect its simulation assumptions. Do not infer application internals from a DOM proxy or treat a malformed stub as a product bug.
- Measure in the order and with the rules of visual-comparison.md, then run the checks of objective-checks.md: layout invariants, states, interaction design, accessibility, themes, wording, consumer routes. These need no design reference and apply at every level.
- Observe the relevant screen and neighbouring alignment; classify unrelated existing differences separately so they do not expand the correction scope. Apply explicit decisions and source precedence supplied by the caller; if unresolved, report the conflict.
- Reconcile with developer evidence only now, and return the differences between your inventory and what the developer measured.
- Return expected/actual values, the reference of each finding, paired captures, limits and the coverage reached per screen, viewport and state. A missing source or unreachable state is unverified with its obstacle, never PASS.
No product source reading, code edits, service startup, user questioning or publication. If URL, credentials or reference access are missing, return the obstacle to the caller. Sharing measurement primitives or setup does not mean sharing the author's verdict.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

