Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add cnfeat/top-pm-skills --skill figma-design-qagit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/cnfeat/top-pm-skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/figma-design-qa)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/figma-design-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/figma-design-qa/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/figma-design-qa"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/cnfeat/top-pm-skills/figma-design-qa.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00093 | $0.00934 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00037 | $0.00374 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00187 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00009 | $0.00093 |
Grade A, and why
figma-design-qa scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 1mo ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 97 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Figma Design QA Skill
Runs a systematic pre-handoff QA check on a Figma design — catching issues that cause engineering back-and-forth before they become expensive.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Feature or screen being QA-d (describe what has been designed)
- Platform (iOS / Android / Web)
- Design system (custom / Material / HIG / None)
- Handoff tool (Figma Inspect / Zeplin / Storybook / Direct link)
- QA depth (quick 15 min / standard 30 min / thorough 60 min)
Output Structure
QA Report: [Feature] | [Date] | [Platform] Overall status: Ready / Minor fixes needed / Not ready
Section 1: File Hygiene
- All layers named semantically (no "Rectangle 12")
- No unused/hidden layers in final frames
- Components from library (not detached copies)
- All text uses text styles (not manual font settings)
- All colours use styles or variables (not hex overrides)
- Frames named to match screen map
- No leftover prototype wires to wrong frames
Section 2: Component Usage
- All buttons use library component
- All inputs use library component
- All icons from approved icon library
- No custom components that should be in library
- Variants used correctly (right size, state, type)
Section 3: Content and Copy
- No placeholder text (Lorem ipsum) in final designs
- All copy reviewed and approved
- Realistic content used (not "User Name")
- Long text edge cases tested
- Error messages are human-readable
- Empty states have copy and CTA
Section 4: States and Coverage
- Default, Loading, Empty, Error, Success states
- Interactive elements have hover/active (web)
- Disabled states designed where applicable
Section 5: Accessibility
- All text meets WCAG AA contrast (4.5:1 body, 3:1 large)
- UI components meet 3:1 contrast against background
- Touch targets minimum 44x44pt iOS / 48x48dp Android
- Focus states for keyboard/switch navigation (web)
- Information not conveyed by colour alone
- Icons have text labels or accessible names annotated
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 1mo ago First seen · 97 lines · 93 tokens per session scan A 2eb3905f3569
figma-design-qa is a skill published in the GitHub repository cnfeat/top-pm-skills (55 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 93 tokens to every session and 934 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
critique-theater
Five-dimension design quality review — score the artifact against craft, brand, accessibility, and copy, then fix what falls short before handing it over.
design-review
Five-dimension design audit (frontend UI/UX · server data-model & flow · endpoint spec · daemon-runtime/SDK & local-cache-first · built-in skill/agent-role), executed by a NON-implementing agent. Every dimension gets a verdict; N/A only with a stated reason. A dimension the design silently skipped must be surfaced as…
cinematic-shot
Shoot software UI like a film. A sequence of hero shots, each a steep, oblique, extreme close-up of the interface floating in black, with a razor-thin focal plane, a slow motivated camera drift, and UI that acts on its own, hard-cut on the action, ending on one line of copy and a still logo. Use when asked for a…
compare-screenshots
Compare screenshots against the intended design, distinguishing approved references from historical baselines. Use for iterative implementation matching, before/after visual review, objective image telemetry, or checking a lone capture for flat, empty, or badly framed content.
code-quality-principles
Applies KISS, YAGNI, and SOLID principles for clean code with reduced complexity. Use when refactoring or reviewing code for over-engineering.
design-with-images
Explore UI and visual design with image generation, then iterate the real implementation against the user-selected concept. Use when brainstorming visual directions, offering mockup variants, or implementing an approved generated design; do not stop at the mockups or the first code approximation.