figma.audit-connect

Task: Audit Figma Code Connect Mapping

Audit the specified Figma Code Connect mapping file.

Before starting, load the figma.connect-best-practices SKILL — it contains the canonical rules for every property mapping type (figma.boolean, figma.enum, figma.string, figma.textContent, figma.instance, figma.children, figma.nestedProps) and common pitfalls. Do not duplicate that guidance here; refer to it.

Inputs

You will be provided with a name or path to a Figma Code Connect mapping file. Code Connect files (.figma.tsx) are colocated with their corresponding components in this repo, typically within the component's local __figma__ directory.

Search for the mapping file and end your task if you cannot find it.

Within the current mapping file:

• Study all the property mappings defined in props: { ... } of each figma.connect() call
• Note which Figma variants are covered (indicated by variant: { ... })
• Note the Figma URL(s) used — you will need these to call the MCP tools

Steps

1. Retrieve Figma component data

   Call the Figma MCP get_context_for_code_connect tool with the fileKey and nodeId from the Figma URL in the mapping file. This is the primary tool for Code Connect authoring. It returns:

   • Every component property with its exact name, type (BOOLEAN, VARIANT, TEXT), and key
   • All variant option values for VARIANT properties
   • The full descendant tree showing which layers reference which properties, and which variants each descendant appears in

   This output is the ground truth for your audit. Use it to understand:

   • What the exact Figma property names are (they often contain spaces and ordinal words like "show 3rd step")
   • Which properties are direct vs. exposed from child layers (the ↳ prefix indicates nested/exposed properties)
   • Which component set variants exist and what their option values are
   • Which descendant layers are text nodes vs. instance nodes

2. Optional: get_design_context for visual context

   If you need to visually inspect what the component looks like (e.g. to understand a variant you're unsure about), call get_design_context with disableCodeConnect: true. This returns a screenshot and reference code. It is not a substitute for get_context_for_code_connect — it does not return structured property metadata — but it can help when the property names alone aren't enough to understand the design intent.

3. Secondary checks with get_metadata

   Use get_metadata only as a targeted follow-up for specific layer-type verification — not as a general overview tool. The specific case where it's needed:

   For every figma.textContent('LayerName') in the mapping file: call get_metadata on that layer's node ID (found in the descendants of the get_context_for_code_connect output). Confirm the response shows <text ...>. If it shows <instance>, <frame>, <symbol>, or any other non-text type, figma.textContent() will fail silently at runtime — flag this as an error and suggest a hardcoded placeholder string instead.

4. Read the React component source

   • Find and read the component's TypeScript source file and any relevant sub-component source files
   • Study the available React props

5. Analyze Property Coverage

   Using the get_context_for_code_connect output as your source of truth, create a mapping analysis table where each row is a Figma property:

   Figma Property	Type	Related React Prop(s)	Mapped?	Mapping Method	Notes

   For each Figma property, indicate:

   • ✅ Fully mapped
   • ⚠️ Partially mapped (explain gap)
   • ❌ Not mapped (explain why it should or shouldn't be)

   Also check variant coverage: does the mapping file have a figma.connect() call for every combination of VARIANT properties? Missing variant connects will cause Figma to show the wrong snippet for some design states.

6. Check for common mistakes (reference figma.connect-best-practices for full detail)

   • figma.string('propName') used on a TEXT property that doesn't appear in the component's formal variant names — this passes TypeScript but fails publish with "property does not exist"
   • figma.textContent('LayerName') used on a layer that is an <instance> not a <text> node
   • figma.children('LayerName') where the layer name differs across variants — needs split figma.connect() calls with variant: { ... } filters
   • Properties with the ↳ prefix mapped directly with figma.string() instead of figma.nestedProps()
   • Boolean props using figma.boolean('disabled') when disabled is actually a value of a state enum, not its own property
   • Intermediate props that aren't real component props — e.g. show3rd: figma.boolean('show 3rd step') where show3rd is not a React prop. These should be assembled into a real prop value using figma.boolean() branching instead
   • example function with a body — an example that builds intermediate variables before returning JSX is a sign that the props design needs refactoring. The example should almost always be a direct JSX return. Note: figma.boolean() returns an opaque descriptor, not a JS boolean — figma.boolean('x') ? a : b always evaluates as truthy and cannot be used for conditional logic outside figma.boolean()'s own true/false branches

7. Generate Report

   Provide a summary with:

   • Coverage: X/Y Figma properties mapped
   • Missing Mappings: Unmapped properties that should be mapped, with suggested mapping method
   • Missing Variants: Component variant combinations not covered by the current figma.connect() calls
   • Incorrect Mappings: Mappings whose type or method doesn't match the actual Figma property type
   • Unnecessary Mappings: Mappings that don't correspond to any Figma property
   • Recommended Changes: Prioritized list of improvements with concrete code snippets