About figma-component-audit
A skill for reviewing a Figma component library and producing a structured audit with prioritized recommendations. It assesses naming, component coverage, variant completeness, documentation, and interactive states.
Key features
- 01Library health summary and scoring
- 02Naming issues with concrete fixes
- 03Component coverage gap review
- 04Interactive variant completeness check
- 05Prioritized fix plan
Use cases
- 01Review consistency in a Figma library
- 02Find missing components for a product
- 03Check component variants and states
- 04Plan design-system cleanup work
Install
Copy the command and run it in a terminal.
$
npx skills add https:/After installing, type/figma-component-auditin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.
Details
From the project READMEFigma Component Audit Skill
Produces a structured audit of a Figma component library — identifying inconsistencies, naming problems, coverage gaps, and prioritised recommendations.
Required Inputs
- Component list or description (paste component names or describe what exists)
- Product type (mobile app / web app / desktop / multi-platform)
- Design system maturity (new / growing / mature / legacy)
- Primary concern (optional)
Output Structure
1. Audit Summary
| Dimension | Status | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Naming consistency | Red/Amber/Green | /10 |
| Component coverage | /10 | |
| Variant completeness | /10 | |
| Documentation | /10 | |
| Overall health | /10 |
Verdict: What is the state of this library and the single most important thing to fix?
2. Naming Issues
For each problem: Issue: [Problem type]
- What is happening: [Specific examples]
- Why it matters: [Impact on designers and developers]
- Fix: [Exact naming convention to adopt]
- Examples: Before / After
Naming convention to enforce:
- Components: PascalCase (NavigationBar)
- Variants: Lowercase with slashes (size/large, state/hover)
- Pages: All caps (COMPONENTS, FOUNDATIONS)
3. Coverage Gaps
| Missing Component | Priority | Why Needed |
|---|---|---|
| [Component] | High/Medium/Low | [Use case] |
4. Variant Completeness Check
| Component | Default | Hover | Active | Disabled | Error | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Button] | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | Active, Error |
5. Prioritised Fix Plan
| # | Fix | Effort | Impact | Do First? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Fix] | Low/Med/High | High | Yes |
Quality Checks
- Naming recommendations have before/after examples
- Coverage gaps are relevant to the product type
- Fix plan is ordered by impact-to-effort ratio
- Variant completeness covers all interactive states
Anti-Patterns
- Do not flag naming issues without providing a specific, consistent naming convention to adopt
- Do not audit only visual consistency — also check for missing interactive states and accessibility compliance
- Do not list all issues at equal priority — group by impact (Critical / Major / Minor) so the fix plan is actionable
- Do not omit variant completeness — every interactive component must cover all required states
- Do not leave coverage gaps without recommending specific missing components to add
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Audit my Figma component library"
- "Review our design system for consistency issues"
- "What components are we missing in our Figma library?"
- "Our component naming is a mess — help me fix it"
- "Do a health check on our Figma components"
Comments
Markdown supported