Design Handoff Brief Skill

Produce a design brief that sets designers up for success — grounding them in user context and constraints before they open Figma, not after they've gone in the wrong direction.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided: - Feature brief or PRD (even rough notes work) - Designer's name or team (for personalisation) - Technical constraints (any engineering limitations already known) - Timeline (when does design need to be done?)

What Designers Actually Need (and PMs Often Skip)

• The user's goal, not the feature name
• The emotional state of the user at this moment in the journey
• What success looks like — how will we know the design worked?
• Constraints: technical, legal, brand, accessibility
• Edge cases that must be handled
• What we're explicitly NOT solving for

Process

1. Read the feature brief or PRD provided
2. Extract user goal (reframe from feature language to user outcome language)
3. Identify constraints — technical limitations, brand guidelines, accessibility requirements
4. List edge cases the design must handle
5. Define success criteria the design should be evaluated against
6. Write a "not in scope" section to prevent scope creep in design
7. Validate — Confirm every edge case listed is specific enough to design for, and every out-of-scope item is concrete enough to say "no" to

Output Structure

Design Brief: [Feature Name]

User Goal: (in the user's words, not ours) "When I [situation], I want to [motivation] so that I can [outcome]."

Context & Emotional State: [Where is the user in their journey? What are they feeling? What just happened?]

Design Success Criteria: - [Criterion 1 — measurable where possible] - [Criterion 2] - [Criterion 3]

Constraints: - Technical: [limitations engineering has flagged] - Brand: [relevant brand guidelines] - Accessibility: [WCAG level required, any specific requirements] - Legal/Compliance: [if applicable]

Edge Cases to Design For: - [Edge case 1] - [Edge case 2] - [Edge case 3]

Explicitly Out of Scope: - [What we are NOT solving in this design iteration]

Reference Material: - User research: [link] - Existing patterns: [Figma component library link] - Competitor examples: [links if relevant]

Quality Checks

• [ ] User goal is written in user language (not feature/product language)
• [ ] At least one edge case covers an error or failure state
• [ ] Success criteria are measurable or observable (not "looks good")
• [ ] Out-of-scope section names at least one thing that might seem in scope but isn't
• [ ] Technical constraints are specific enough for an engineer to confirm

Anti-Patterns

• [ ] Do not write the user goal in feature language ("design the checkout flow") — it must be written from the user's perspective with a motivation and outcome
• [ ] Do not skip the "Explicitly Out of Scope" section — without it, designers will inadvertently solve problems not intended for this iteration
• [ ] Do not list edge cases that are so generic they apply to any feature (e.g. "handle errors") — each edge case must be specific to this feature's failure modes
• [ ] Do not hand off the brief without confirming engineering constraints are accurate — a constraint that is wrong is worse than no constraint
• [ ] Do not omit the emotional context of the user — designs without emotional grounding produce technically correct but experientially flat results