Figma Email Readiness

Reads a Figma file, finds the email frames, and scores the file against the setup an AI needs before it can design emails there:

• a brand kit
• color tokens
• an email type scale
• components
• clean email frames
• the handoff conventions around each email

It writes two files: a report anyone can read, and a fix list someone can work through. The checklist behind it is SETUP.md.

Why this exists

AI email design fails for setup reasons more often than for prompt reasons. When colors are typed by hand, text has no styles and every email is drawn from scratch, the AI has nothing to reuse and nothing to check itself against, so it guesses. The same gaps slow down every human designer and every build in the email platform.

Running it

1. Load the figma-use skill. It is required before any use_figma call.
2. Take the file key from the Figma URL (figma.com/design/<fileKey>/...).
3. Read scripts/audit.js and pass the whole file, unchanged, as the code argument of use_figma on that file key. It only reads. If the emails use another width, change CONFIG.emailWidths in the code you send, not in the file.
4. If check K1 reports 0 local variables, 0 color styles and 0 library variables in use, run search_design_system with includeVariables: true before calling tokens missing. A team library can exist without being bound in the emails yet.
5. Do the visual pass (below).
6. Write the two outputs (below).

The visual pass

The script can't judge photos or rendering. Screenshot up to four emails from different pages at 1:1 (get_screenshot, maxDimension set to the frame height), plus the brand kit page if there is one. Look for:

• Products without their branding: unlabeled jars, blank packaging.
• Mixed shoots: photos that look like different shoots or different light.
• Clipped or overlapping text the script missed, such as text over images.
• Placeholder images.

Visual findings go into the fix list. They don't change the score, and the report says so.

What it scores

Six areas, 22 checks, weights summing to 100. Each check passes or fails, with no partial credit, because partial credit flatters. Scores are floored, never rounded up. Every check, its pass condition and the reasoning are in references/rubric.md.

Two rules that keep the report honest

Missing foundations are file-level findings. No emails at the expected width, no color tokens, no text styles, no components, no brand kit page: each is reported once at the top. Never present one missing foundation as hundreds of individual failures.

Repeated evidence points at a component. When the same failure shows up in most emails, find the component it comes from and report it once, as one fix that clears every email. On a real production file, contrast failed in 40 of 40 sampled emails. It was one footer component with grey 10.5 px text at 3.2:1: one fix, not forty.

Grades

Outputs

Save to the folder the user names, by default ./figma-readiness-<label>/.

• report.md: follow references/report-template.md. Plain language, short sentences, no jargon without a one-line explanation.
• fixes.csv: columns area, check, where, what is wrong, fix, scope, where where is page / email / node ID and scope is component, file or email. Order the rows by leverage: component and file fixes first, then per-email fixes.

Reference results

• The Limonaia example scores 100. It scored 95 until its section components (hero, text block, image and text, callout, steps, review, cart line) were added.
• A real production file with 265 emails, sampled to 40, scored 54. The gaps were real:
  • one footer causing every contrast failure
  • raw colors and unstyled text in older emails
  • template code shown as copy
  • no inbox preview, brief or status on older pages

Privacy

Email names, copy and layer names in the result belong to whoever owns the file. Use a de-identified label on anything you share, and don't commit audit outputs to a public repo.

What this is not

• Not a review of one email. That is email-design-review.
• Not the fix. It tells you what to set up. SETUP.md explains how.
• Never edits the file. No quick fixes while auditing, even obvious ones. Report them.

Known limits

• Components are found by name (header, footer, button, product, hero, and so on). A file with unusual names can under-score C1 and C2. Check the component list in the result before calling something missing.
• Contrast uses the nearest solid background. Text over photos is skipped and belongs to the visual pass.
• Brand kit coverage is a keyword scan of a page named like a brand kit. A kit kept outside Figma scores as missing. Say so in the report and ask where it lives.
• Unsubscribe, address, hard line breaks and straight apostrophes are warnings, not scored.