---

name: design-handoff-brief
description: "Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries."

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