Install
$ agentstack add skill-mohitagw15856-pm-claude-skills-design-handoff-brief ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
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
- Read the feature brief or PRD provided
- Extract user goal (reframe from feature language to user outcome language)
- Identify constraints — technical limitations, brand guidelines, accessibility requirements
- List edge cases the design must handle
- Define success criteria the design should be evaluated against
- Write a "not in scope" section to prevent scope creep in design
- 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
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: mohitagw15856
- Source: mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
- License: MIT
- Homepage: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.