BC figma-design-to-code
**MANDATORY prerequisite** — you MUST invoke this skill BEFORE calling the `get_design_context` Figma MCP tool. You MUST trigger this skill whenever the user wants to implement, build, port, or code up a Figma design as code. Example prompts (not exhaustive) are 'implement this Figma design', 'build this screen from Figma', 'turn this Figma into code', 'design to code'. This skill provides critical instructions and steps to the agent on how to correctly implement Figma designs in code and must NOT be skipped.
The skill acts as a gate before calling Figma MCP: it intercepts design-to-code requests and feeds the agent instructions on how to do it correctly. One file, clean syntax, B grade with 80 quality and 61 process score.
In practice, the skill triggers on prompts like 'implement this Figma design' and blocks direct `get_design_context` calls until the agent reads the instructions. The logic is sound: prevent mistakes upfront. But real effectiveness depends on whether the agent actually follows the guidelines afterward—that's not validated. The process score of 61 hints at gaps in execution checks.
Install it if you frequently ask the agent to code Figma mockups and want at least basic control over the action sequence. If your agent is already disciplined, you'll see little difference.
MANDATORY prerequisite — you MUST invoke this skill BEFORE calling the getdesigncontext Figma MCP tool.
As a process C 61/100 · Has gaps — weak spots: result and completion, inputs and preconditions, progress reporting
The same skill appears in 1 more place: opencode
How to improve
- Your own cases (evals/evals.json, 4–6 real requests with expected answers): the full check would then run those instead of a model-drafted suite.
- A spec.yaml with trigger phrases and assertions — a behaviour contract for CI; `skilltest init` writes a template.
Guard findings · 0
✓ No critical or high findings
Files scanned: 1. Evidence is masked. Grey chips explain why severity was lowered.
Against the Agent Skills spec
✓ No remarks against the Agent Skills spec
Process rating: all ten parameters 61/100
- 0Result and completion. Does not say what the result is
- 0Inputs and preconditions. Does not say what the process needs to start
- 0Progress reporting. Says nothing while it works
- 55Failures and branches. 1 branches
- 60Tools and files. Uses tools (node) that frontmatter does not declare
- 100Steps. 12 steps
- 100When it triggers. States when to use and when not to
- 100Consistency. Name and required fields are in place
- 100Execution cost. Instruction body is 864 tokens
- 100Running it twice. No mutating operations
Everything here is measured from the skill text rather than judged by a model, so the numbers are checkable. A parameter weighs more when it is a more common reason for the process to stall.
Quality signals
- +5Description has no quoted example phrases that should trigger the skill
- +4Description does not say when NOT to use the skill (false activations)
- +3Output format is not stated: the model decides each time
- +4No input/output examples
- +1No license
- +2Single-language instructions
- +3Description length 514: enough signal without eating the budget
- +4Structure: 4 headings
- +3Step-by-step instructions: 12 items
Quality base 70; lint remarks subtract, signals add up to 100. Result: 80.