Design System Audit Skill
This skill produces a structured audit of a design system — covering component coverage, token consistency, documentation quality, accessibility compliance, contribution processes, and adoption health. Output is ready for a design system team, design leadership, or an engineering team evaluating their shared component library.
Required Inputs
Ask the user for these if not provided:
- Design system name and what product(s) it serves
- Audit scope — component library / design tokens / documentation / contribution process / all of the above
- Current tooling — Figma / Storybook / Zeroheight / custom / combination?
- Team using it — how many designers and engineers, how many products?
- Known pain points — what do teams complain about most?
- Governance model — centralised team / federated contributors / no dedicated team?
- Goal of the audit — improve adoption / prepare for a rebrand / onboard new teams / justify investment?
Output Structure
Design System Audit: [System Name]
Products served: [List of products / apps] Audit scope: [Full / Components only / Tokens only / Documentation] Auditor: [Name / Team] Date: [Date] Stakeholders: [Design lead, Eng lead, CPO, etc.]
Overall Health Score
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Component coverage | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Token consistency | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Documentation quality | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Accessibility compliance | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Adoption rate | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Contribution process | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
| Overall | [X/5] | 🟢/🟡/🔴 |
Summary: [2–3 sentences. What is the overall state of the design system? What are the top 2 issues and what is the biggest strength?]
1. Component Coverage Audit
How to assess: Compare components in the design system against the actual UI patterns in the product. Every pattern that exists in production but not in the system is a coverage gap.
Component Inventory
| Category | Components present | Coverage | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| Navigation | [Navbar, Sidebar, Breadcrumb, Tabs] | [80%] | [Missing: Mega menu, mobile drawer] |
| Forms & Inputs | [Text input, Dropdown, Checkbox, Radio, Toggle, Date picker] | [90%] | [Missing: Multi-select, Rich text editor] |
| Feedback & Alerts | [Toast, Banner, Modal, Tooltip] | [60%] | [Missing: Inline validation, Progress indicator, Skeleton loader] |
| Data Display | [Table, Card, Badge, Avatar] | [50%] | [Missing: Data grid, Stat card, Timeline, Gantt] |
| Layout | [Grid, Container, Divider, Spacer] | [70%] | [Missing: Responsive breakpoint utilities] |
| Buttons & Actions | [Button, Icon button, FAB, Link] | [100%] | [None] |
Coverage score: [X% of production UI patterns are covered by the design system]
Most impactful gaps:
- [Most used pattern not in the system — causing most duplication]
- [...]
- [...]
2. Component Quality Audit
For each component, assess against these quality criteria:
| Component | States complete | Responsive | Accessibility | Dark mode | Props documented | Code matches Figma |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Button | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ | ✅ |
| Modal | ⚠️ Loading state missing | ✅ | ✅ | ❌ | ⚠️ Partial | ✅ |
| Table | ❌ Sorting state missing | ❌ No mobile layout | ⚠️ No aria-sort | ❌ | ❌ | ⚠️ Drift |
| [Component] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
Legend: ✅ Complete — ⚠️ Partial / inconsistent — ❌ Missing
Components with critical quality issues (fix before anything else):
- [Component name]: [Specific issue and why it's blocking]
- [...]
3. Design Token Audit
Token coverage:
| Token type | Defined | Used consistently | Issues |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colour | [X tokens defined] | [⚠️ — 12 hardcoded hex values found in Figma] | [Inconsistent use of primary-500 vs primary-600 for CTAs across products] |
| Typography | [X tokens defined] | [✅] | [None — all type styles use token scale] |
| Spacing | [X tokens defined] | [⚠️ — custom spacing used in X components] | [Engineers using arbitrary px values instead of spacing tokens in X components] |
| Border radius | [X tokens defined] | [❌ — not defined; each component has hardcoded values] | [Button, card, modal all use different radius values with no token] |
| Shadow / elevation | [X tokens defined] | [⚠️] | [3 different drop-shadow values in use; no elevation scale] |
| Animation / motion | [X tokens defined] | [❌ — not defined] | [Transition durations inconsistent across components] |
Semantic token layer: [Does the system have semantic tokens (e.g. color.action.primary on top of color.blue.500) or only primitive tokens?]
Token drift: [Are code tokens and Figma tokens in sync? Use a tool like Token Studio, Style Dictionary, or manual comparison.]
4. Documentation Quality Audit
Assessment per component / pattern:
| Document type | Quality | Issues |
|---|---|---|
| Usage guidelines | [⚠️ — X% of components have guidelines] | [Button and Form components documented; Navigation and Data Display mostly undocumented] |
| Do / Don't examples | [❌ — mostly absent] | [Engineers frequently misuse components because intent is unclear] |
| Accessibility notes | [⚠️ — present for some components] | [No consistent format; accessibility notes missing for interactive components] |
| Code examples | [✅ — all Storybook components have code examples] | [...] |
| Changelog | [❌ — no component-level changelog exists] | [Breaking changes are not communicated; causes unexpected UI regressions] |
| Migration guides | [❌ — absent] | [Teams don't know how to upgrade to new component versions] |
Documentation score: [X% of components have complete, usable documentation]
Most common designer / engineer complaint about docs: [e.g. "I can't find whether to use Modal or Drawer for this use case — no guidance exists"]
5. Accessibility Audit
WCAG 2.2 compliance status:
| Criterion | Level | Status | Components affected |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colour contrast (text) | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [e.g. ❌ — Disabled state text fails 4.5:1 ratio in 3 components] |
| Colour contrast (UI components) | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [...] |
| Keyboard navigation | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [⚠️ — Modal focus trap not implemented; Dropdown not keyboard accessible] |
| Focus visible | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [...] |
| Screen reader support (ARIA) | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [❌ — Table component lacks aria-sort; Icon buttons have no aria-label] |
| Touch target size | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [⚠️ — Mobile tap targets below 44×44px in X components] |
| Motion / animation | AA | [✅ / ⚠️ / ❌] | [...] |
Critical accessibility blockers (must fix before next release):
- [Most critical issue — e.g. Keyboard users cannot close Modal — focus trap missing]
- [...]
6. Adoption Audit
Adoption by team / product:
| Product / Team | Components used from system | Custom components built outside system | Adoption score |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Product A] | [X% of UI uses system components] | [Y custom components] | [High / Medium / Low] |
| [Product B] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
Why teams are not adopting:
| Barrier | Severity | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| [Component doesn't exist] | High | [Top reason in team survey] |
| [Component exists but doesn't meet use case] | Medium | [Modal component lacks X state needed by Product B] |
| [Documentation too sparse to know how to use it] | Medium | [...] |
| [No one enforces system use — easier to build custom] | High | [...] |
| [System is out of date with product's current visual language] | Medium | [...] |
7. Contribution Process Audit
| Dimension | Current state | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| How to contribute | [Documented / Not documented] | [✅ / ❌] |
| Contribution criteria | [Clear entry bar for what goes in the system] | [⚠️ — unclear who decides what becomes a system component vs stays local] |
| Review process | [Who reviews contributions and how long it takes] | [❌ — no formal review; contributions sit unreviewed for weeks] |
| Release cadence | [How often system releases happen] | [⚠️ — sporadic; no set cadence] |
| Breaking change policy | [How breaking changes are handled and communicated] | [❌ — no policy; breaking changes are a surprise] |
| Versioning | [Semantic versioning in place?] | [✅ — all packages use semver] |
8. Prioritised Remediation Roadmap
| Priority | Initiative | Impact | Effort | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Fix [X] critical accessibility issues (keyboard nav, ARIA) | Critical — legal + user impact | Medium | Sprint 1–2 |
| P1 | Define and implement border radius and shadow token scale | High — ends inconsistency | Low | Sprint 1 |
| P1 | Document top 10 most-used components (usage + do/don't) | High — unblocks adoption | Medium | Sprint 2–4 |
| P2 | Build Skeleton loader + Inline validation components (top 2 gaps) | High — eliminates custom duplication | High | Quarter 2 |
| P2 | Establish contribution process with SLA for reviews | Medium — enables growth | Low | Sprint 3 |
| P3 | Dark mode token support | Medium — product parity | High | Quarter 3 |
| P3 | Design-code token sync tooling (Token Studio / Style Dictionary) | Medium — reduces drift | Medium | Quarter 2–3 |
Quality Checks
- Coverage gaps are identified by comparing the design system to actual production UI, not assumed
- Accessibility issues cite specific WCAG criterion and affected components
- Adoption barriers are backed by evidence (interviews, survey, usage data) — not assumed
- Remediation roadmap has effort estimates and is sequenced by impact
- Both Figma and code (Storybook/implementation) are assessed — not just Figma
- Stakeholders from design, engineering, and product have reviewed the audit
Anti-Patterns
- Do not assess only the Figma library without checking the code implementation — Figma-code drift is one of the most common and costly design system failures
- Do not score adoption without interviewing teams — audit tool metrics miss the human reasons teams build custom components instead of using the system
- Do not treat all component gaps equally — prioritise gaps based on how many production screens rely on custom implementations, not alphabetically
- Do not recommend adding more components without first auditing documentation quality — an undocumented component is often worse than no component
- Do not schedule remediation without a named owner per initiative — design system improvements without ownership consistently stall
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Audit our design system for consistency and coverage"
- "Review our component library and identify gaps"
- "Assess the health of our shared design system"
- "Run a design system audit before we do a rebrand"
- "What's wrong with our design system and what should we fix first?"