design-ops — independently scanned and version-tracked by SaferSkills.
SaferSkills independently audited design-ops (Agent Skill) and scored it 100/100 (green). The audit ran 55 deterministic rules across Security, Supply Chain, Maintenance, Transparency, and Community; it found 0 high-severity and 0 lower-severity findings. The full rule-by-rule trace and per-finding evidence are below. Free, methodology-open.
Findings & checks · 0 flagged
Every scanned point with the score it earned and what moved between them.
First recorded scan — no prior version to compare against.
The primary manifest — the file an agent reads to learn what this artifact does.
Operational processes that make design teams effective — sprints, handoff, rituals, documentation, and quality assurance.
A 5-day process for solving big problems and testing ideas before committing engineering resources. Based on Jake Knapp's Sprint methodology developed at Google Ventures.
| Signal | Sprint Is Right | Sprint Is Wrong |
|---|---|---|
| Problem clarity | Big problem, unclear solution | Solution already known — just build it |
| Stakes | High — wrong direction costs months | Low — easy to course-correct later |
| Team alignment | Disagreement on approach | Team already aligned |
| Time pressure | Need answers this week | Can run a longer discovery process |
| Complexity | Cross-functional problem | Single-discipline task |
| Day | Focus | Key Activity | Output |
|---|---|---|---|
| Monday | Map | Define the challenge, set a 2-year goal, map the problem space, pick a target | Sprint questions, problem map, target area |
| Tuesday | Sketch | Review existing solutions, each person sketches solutions individually | Solution sketches (one per person) |
| Wednesday | Decide | Present sketches, vote (dot voting + decider picks), create storyboard | Storyboard for prototype |
| Thursday | Prototype | Build a realistic facade — just enough to test | Testable prototype |
| Friday | Test | 5 user interviews, observe together, identify patterns | Go/no-go decision with evidence |
| Role | Count | Responsibility |
|---|---|---|
| Decider | 1 | Has authority to make final calls. Usually PM or founder |
| Facilitator | 1 | Runs the process, keeps time, manages energy |
| Designer | 1-2 | Leads sketching, builds prototype |
| Engineer | 1-2 | Feasibility gut-checks, helps prototype |
| Domain expert | 1-2 | Customer support, sales, marketing — whoever knows the user |
| Total | 5-7 | More than 7 is counterproductive |
Handoff is the #1 source of quality loss in product teams. The goal: engineers should never have to guess.
| Level | Description | Symptom |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Screenshot | Designer sends a static image | Engineers guess spacing, states, behavior |
| 2. Annotated mockup | Redlines, spacing callouts | Better, but still missing states and edge cases |
| 3. Interactive spec | Figma/design tool with inspect mode, component links | Engineers can extract values, but behavior is undocumented |
| 4. Full spec | All states, transitions, error handling, responsive behavior, tokens | Engineers build exactly what was designed |
| 5. Integrated | Design and code share a component system; handoff is a conversation, not a document | Minimal spec needed — shared language does the work |
Target: Level 4 minimum. Level 5 for mature teams.
Every screen or component handoff must cover:
| Category | Required Items |
|---|---|
| Layout | Spacing (in tokens, not pixels), alignment, responsive breakpoints, container behavior |
| Content | Final copy (not lorem ipsum), character limits, truncation rules, localization notes |
| States | Default, hover, focus, active, disabled, loading, empty, error, success — for every interactive element |
| Behavior | What happens on click/tap, keyboard interaction, drag, swipe. Transition details |
| Responsive | How the layout adapts at each breakpoint. What reflows, stacks, hides, or changes |
| Tokens | Color tokens, typography tokens, spacing tokens — never raw hex/px values |
| Accessibility | Focus order, ARIA roles, screen reader announcements, touch targets, color contrast |
| Edge cases | Long strings, empty data, error recovery, offline behavior, permissions |
| Assets | Icons (SVG), images (with alt text), animations (specs or files) |
| Anti-Pattern | Problem | Fix |
|---|---|---|
| "It's in Figma" | No context, engineer must reverse-engineer intent | Write behavior notes on every frame |
| Happy path only | Only the ideal flow is designed | Design all states before handoff |
| Pixel specs | "24px left margin" | Use tokens: spacing-md |
| Verbal handoff | "I'll explain it in standup" | If it's not written down, it doesn't exist |
| Big-bang handoff | Entire feature dropped on engineering at once | Hand off in slices that match sprint stories |
| No error states | "We'll figure out errors later" | Error states are designed first, not last |
| Ritual | Frequency | Duration | Purpose | Who Attends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design critique | Weekly | 45-60 min | Improve work-in-progress through structured feedback | All designers |
| Design-eng sync | Weekly | 30 min | Align on upcoming work, resolve handoff questions | Design lead + eng lead |
| Design review | Per milestone | 30-60 min | Stakeholder sign-off on direction | PM, design, eng leads, stakeholders |
| Handoff session | Per story/feature | 30-45 min | Walk engineering through specs, answer questions | Designer + implementing engineers |
| Design QA | Per release | 60-90 min | Verify implementation matches spec | Designer + engineer |
| Retro | Bi-weekly or per sprint | 45 min | Improve the process | Whole product team |
| Design sprint | As needed | 5 days | Solve big problems, validate risky ideas | Cross-functional team (5-7) |
Format: Presenter shares context (2 min) → Group reviews silently (3 min) → Structured feedback (15-20 min per piece) → Next steps (2 min)
Critique rules:
project-name/
├── exploration/ # Early concepts, discarded directions
│ └── v1-concepts/
├── current/ # Active, approved designs
│ ├── flows/ # User flows and journey maps
│ ├── screens/ # Screen-level designs
│ └── components/ # Component-level specs
├── assets/ # Production-ready exports
│ ├── icons/
│ └── images/
├── handoff/ # Handoff documentation
│ └── [feature-name]/
└── archive/ # Past versions (never delete, move here)| Element | Convention | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Files | [project]-[feature]-[variant] | taskpilot-onboarding-v2 |
| Pages/frames | [flow]-[step]-[state] | checkout-payment-error |
| Components | Match code component names exactly | ButtonPrimary, not Main CTA |
| Versions | Semantic: v1.0, v1.1, v2.0 | Major = new direction, minor = iteration |
| Layers | Descriptive, no "Group 1" or "Frame 47" | header/nav/menu-trigger |
Design QA is the process of verifying that what was built matches what was designed. Do it before every release.
| Category | Check | Tool |
|---|---|---|
| Visual accuracy | Colors match tokens. Spacing matches spec. Typography is correct | Side-by-side comparison, browser dev tools |
| States | All states render correctly: default, hover, focus, active, disabled, error, loading, empty | Manual testing, Storybook |
| Responsive | Layout works at all breakpoints. Nothing overflows, truncates wrong, or disappears | Resize browser, test on real devices |
| Content | Real content fits. Long strings handled. Empty states designed. Truncation works | Test with edge-case content |
| Interaction | Animations match spec. Transitions are smooth. Timing feels right | Manual testing, slow-motion recording |
| Accessibility | Focus order correct. Screen reader announces correctly. Contrast passes. Touch targets 44px+ | axe, keyboard testing, VoiceOver/NVDA |
| Cross-browser | Renders correctly in Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge | BrowserStack or manual |
| Performance | Images optimized. No layout shift. Animations don't drop frames | Lighthouse, Core Web Vitals |
Every issue needs:
**What:** [Element name] on [screen/page]
**Expected:** [What the design spec shows — link to frame]
**Actual:** [What the build shows — screenshot]
**Severity:** [Critical / Major / Minor / Cosmetic]
**Environment:** [Browser, viewport, OS]Severity scale:
Add these to every user story:
Design acceptance criteria:
- [ ] All states match design spec (link to Figma frame)
- [ ] Responsive behavior verified at 320px, 768px, 1024px, 1440px
- [ ] Keyboard navigation works (Tab, Enter, Escape, Arrow keys)
- [ ] Screen reader announces all interactive elements correctly
- [ ] Design tokens used (no hardcoded colors, spacing, or typography)
- [ ] Loading and error states implemented
- [ ] Edge-case content tested (empty, long strings, special characters)Track these to measure design ops health:
| Metric | What It Measures | Target | How to Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Handoff completeness | % of handoffs with all states, tokens, responsive specs | >90% | Audit handoff docs quarterly |
| Design QA pass rate | % of stories passing design QA on first review | >80% | Track QA issues per story |
| Rework rate | % of design work that gets redone after handoff | <15% | Count post-handoff design changes |
| Sprint velocity impact | How often missing specs block engineering | 0 blocks/sprint | Track blocker tags in standup |
| Design debt | Known visual/interaction inconsistencies in production | Decreasing trend | Maintain a design debt backlog |
| Critique participation | Designers bringing work to critique regularly | 100% monthly | Track critique presenters |
The processes above assume a dedicated design team. But many organizations have a single designer — or someone who does design as part of a broader role. The principles still apply; the execution scales down. This section provides adapted methods for resource-constrained teams, drawing on Leah Buley's UX team-of-one framework.
When you don't have budget, time, or formal research infrastructure:
| Full Process | Guerrilla Alternative | When It's Enough |
|---|---|---|
| Formal usability study (lab, recruiting, 5+ participants) | Hallway testing with 3 people for 15 minutes | Early concepts, internal tools, low-stakes features |
| Multi-week discovery research | 3 customer interviews in one week + support ticket review | You need directional insight, not statistical confidence |
| Design sprint (5 full days) | Mini-sprint: 2-day version (map + sketch on day 1, prototype + test on day 2) | Smaller problems, aligned team, good prior research |
| Full journey mapping workshop | Assumption map on a whiteboard (30 min with the team, mark what you know vs. guess) | When you need alignment more than research |
| Formal design critique (weekly, all designers) | Async critique in Figma comments with one engineer and one PM | Solo designer, no design peers available |
| Design system with governance | Component inventory + shared Figma library with naming conventions | Small product, 1-3 engineers |
As a solo or lean-team designer, your effectiveness depends on relationships more than process.
Earn a seat at the table:
Influence without authority:
| Full Ritual | Lean Alternative | Cadence |
|---|---|---|
| Weekly design critique | Bi-weekly "design lunch" — show WIP to anyone interested, even non-designers | Every 2 weeks |
| Design-eng sync | 15-minute standup addition: "Here's what's coming in design this sprint" | Per sprint |
| Formal design review | Share a 1-page decision doc with the PM before a milestone. Async approval | Per milestone |
| Design QA sprint | QA checklist in the PR template — designer reviews before merge | Per story |
| Retro | Add one design-specific question to the team retro: "Where did design and implementation diverge?" | Per sprint |
When full specs aren't practical:
Track and communicate your impact, even informally:
Small wins compound. Each one makes the next conversation about investing in design easier.
| Mistake | Why It Fails | Better Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Skipping the sprint map day | Team builds solutions to the wrong problem | Monday's map and target selection is the most valuable day |
| Designing in isolation | Work handed off doesn't match engineering reality | Daily or weekly design-eng syncs |
| No design QA process | Visual quality degrades over time | QA every story, not just every release |
| Over-documenting | 30-page spec nobody reads | Spec what's ambiguous. Shared component system handles the rest |
| Under-documenting | "You can see it in Figma" | If an engineer has to ask, the spec was incomplete |
| Treating handoff as a one-time event | Throws work over the wall | Handoff is a conversation that continues through implementation |
| No retros | Same mistakes repeat | Bi-weekly retros with specific action items and owners |
| Design critique as approval gate | Critique becomes political | Critique is for improving work, not for approving it |
~30 seconds. Free. No account. Every finding cites a rule and a line of evidence.