How an AI agent can compare Linear issue scope with approved Figma frames to produce clear acceptance checks, missing-state questions, and status updates
This workflow gives an AI agent a defined job, a bounded set of records, and a result a person can review. The agent reads the relevant Linear context and matches it with Figma, applies the rules in the prompt, and keeps the source behind every recommendation. It returns a proposed handoff rather than taking consequential actions on its own.
Can an AI agent compare Linear issue scope with approved Figma frames to produce clear acceptance checks, missing-state questions, and status updates?
Yes. Start with the scope, date range, decision rules, and fields that identify the right records. The agent can collect the evidence, compare states or sources, mark conflicts and missing data, and organize the result around the outcome above. A reviewer then checks the matches and judgment calls before approving messages, record updates, bookings, purchases, publishing, or other write actions. The guide below shows the records, boundaries, prompt, and handoff needed for this specific workflow.
What this agent helps you do
A Linear and Figma design delivery agent keeps product planning connected to approved design intent. Linear supplies issue scope, priority, project status, dependencies, cycles, and owner context. Figma supplies frames, variants, interactions, copy, and the visual states the implementation must satisfy.
When to use this workflow
Use it during planning, sprint review, design handoff, or release readiness when the ticket and source design need to agree. It is especially useful after design revisions, when old issue descriptions can continue pointing at superseded behavior.
How Linear and Figma give the agent context
Connect both plugins and provide a Linear issue, project, or cycle plus the approved Figma section. Linear should define committed scope; Figma should show the intended user-visible behavior. Keep issue edits, comments, and status changes approval-based.
Example starter prompt
Compare Linear issues [IDs or project] with the approved Figma frames in [section]. Map each issue to its frames and states, identify missing or outdated scope, and draft acceptance checks for review. Do not update issues or comment in Figma without approval.Suggested workflow steps
Start with the Linear issue or project scope. Have the agent follow explicit design links, compare requirements with the approved frames, and identify states or interactions that lack planned work. Unmatched frames and issues should remain visible instead of being joined by similar names.
Expected handoff
Ask for issue-to-frame mapping, missing states, outdated links, dependencies, blockers, acceptance checks, and approval-ready Linear updates.
Questions this workflow answers
Can an agent compare approved designs with planned engineering work and show which user-visible states have no issue or acceptance check?
Yes. Linear supplies the project, issues, owners, dependencies, milestones, and acceptance criteria. Figma supplies the approved frames, components, variants, copy, and interaction states referenced by the workflow. The agent inventories both sides and creates a mapping based on explicit links and project context rather than assuming similar titles describe the same scope.
Ask it to include default, loading, empty, error, permission, responsive, and completion states where the design shows them. An existing issue may cover several frames, while one frame may require interface, API, and accessibility work. The mapping should preserve that relationship and identify whether the gap is missing work, outdated criteria, an old design link, or an unresolved design decision.
The agent can draft acceptance checks tied to observable behavior, but it should not invent business rules for states that the design does not define. It should also flag Linear work that no longer appears in the approved design. Product, design, and engineering decide whether that item is obsolete or reflects intentional scope beyond the frames.
The handoff includes issue and frame links, covered and uncovered states, dependencies, owners, blockers, and proposed updates. A project owner reviews each Linear change before publishing it. The result gives the team a traceable account of what users are meant to experience and where the delivery plan still fails to express that commitment.
When implementation has already started, the mapping should identify which acceptance checks are evidenced by the current pull request and which remain design assumptions. That prevents a link to active code from being mistaken for proof that every approved state is covered.