Figma Component Audit

Audit a Figma component library for consistency, coverage gaps, and naming issues. Use when asked to audit components, review a design system, check component consistency, identify missing components, or assess Figma library health. Produces a structured audit report with issues prioritised by impact, naming recommendations, and a fix plan.

Figma 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"