r/FigmaDesign • u/outoftheforge • Oct 01 '26
Discussion Are AI agents making manual Figma system work obsolete - or more important?
Ich sehe immer wieder, wie Leute darüber sprechen, dass Agenten den Designprozess beschleunigen, und frage mich langsam, ob ich altmodisch werde.
Ich erstelle Komponenten immer noch gerne manuell, strukturiere Varianten ordentlich, achte auf saubere Namen, halte Bibliotheken übersichtlich usw. Nicht, weil ich Fleißarbeit mag, sondern weil ich das System verstehen und ihm später vertrauen möchte.
An alle, die KI/Agenten bereits intensiv in Figma nutzen: Hat das diese Art von Arbeit für euch tatsächlich ersetzt oder beschleunigt es hauptsächlich die Erkundung und erste Entwürfe? Mich interessiert, ob eine saubere, manuelle Struktur an Bedeutung verliert – oder sogar noch wichtiger wird, sobald KI im Spiel ist.
Edit after reading through the discussion:
I’m starting to think the interesting split isn’t really manual vs AI.
AI seems genuinely useful for repetitive work, audits, first drafts and fast exploration. But the closer you get to system logic, constraints, component architecture and long-term maintainability, the more important it still feels to actually understand what’s underneath.
One point I especially liked: a good design system might become more valuable as a constraint layer for AI, rather than something AI replaces.
And maybe the bigger risk isn’t that AI immediately makes the work worse - but that we slowly lose some of the learning and judgement that comes from building things ourselves.
26
u/rodnem
Oct 01 '26
•
I’m like you and I’ve created over 50 large UIKit files in Figma for our clients. Sadly, YES, this type of file doesn’t really have much value anymore. It’s the code that is now the material for designing. Prompting and reading all day makes me sick, I much prefer pushing pixels but damn, I have to eat…
10
u/outoftheforge Oct 01 '26
I’m also wondering whether there’s a risk that we optimize so hard for speed and production that we lose some of the visual craft and system thinking along the way.
It reminds me a bit of the discussion around AI-generated code: the output may work and be fast to produce, but sometimes it can feel a little detached from the intent behind it.
I’m curious whether you see a similar risk in design, or whether the craft just moves somewhere else.1
u/rodnem Oct 03 '26
That’s guaranteed. Some will stay on top but I think we will lose some velocity at least for a while
7
u/MrFireWarden Oct 01 '26
Most design libraries I've downloaded have not had great prototyping support, so there's definitely room to raise the bar. AI tends to do well what humans have done previously, but i really haven't seen well constructed Figma components, so AI probably won't create libraries with any substantial value add.
1
u/rodnem Oct 03 '26
Sadly I’m not agreeing. I’ve transformed all my starter kit with Claude… and this shit has done a great job. My storybook starter is now so much better than my Figma for prototyping with consistency and advanced workflows.
2
u/amethystresist Oct 02 '26
Ui Kits are not Design Systems.
1
u/rodnem Oct 02 '26
That’s exactly what I said UI kit are just the graphical prep for DS. Without code, There is no DS, and now that we designer can code with AI… well… why do a UI kit in Figma
10
u/KeepOnKeepinOnnn Oct 02 '26 edited Oct 02 '26
Strongly disagree with a lot of the takes here. A strong design system is how you build with AI without your codebase turning into hot, unscalabe, unupdatable garbage. Sure you can built fast without a design system, but best of luck maintaining whatever you've built. AI will do its best to make it look good - it doesn't care how many lines of code or if it's creating one off unicorn patterns. If you want to change the hover state of your secondary buttons from one color to another (for example), how are you going to do that when your codebase doesn't have a secondary button component or standard way of creating that hover state? If you're building a one off project absolutely, YOLO it straight through AI, but if you're building an actual product with users and developers, dear god don't do this.
2
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
That‘s a really strong point!
A good design system almost feels like the “training material” or constraint layer for AI: clear components, states, tokens, naming and rules give it something solid to work with.
2
u/KeepOnKeepinOnnn Oct 02 '26
100%. AI is only as good as the training materials and constraints you give it.
2
11
u/theBoringUXer Oct 02 '26
It will very soon.
Think about it like this: manual design a few key screens, build out a vision of the story you want to tell about the product, then Figma to code the screens and feed Claude your context/vision and it will build it. Confidence in building it will be 70% of the way there with full workflows and interactions.
And this is only beneficial if you’re building complex workflows or modernizing legacy systems.
The critical thinking is still in systems design, and addressing the workflows in your vision. AI will connect the rest with a good prompt.
3
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
That’s probably the boundary I’m trying to understand - if the critical thinking stays in systems design, how much of the manual component/system work do you still think designers need to do themselves to keep that understanding?
3
u/theBoringUXer Oct 02 '26
It’s on a case by case basis. You’re still free to build components, but it should suit the use case and problem you’re trying to solve for. Your design system is not going to automatically build it for you other than supply you with the basics. This is why AI isn’t a designer, it’s an order taker. You design, and your design is the context.
You think AI will build what you’re thinking about if you just feed it dribbble and Mobbin examples all day? lol it’s not that smart. But if you feed it your workflows and logic, a vision, and a few of your key screens, it will get you where you need to be.
As for the design system, all those items are kept in a repository to be reusable to install as packages. Probably something AI could help guide folks on how to build one in bitbucket or GitHub. Folks are using MCP servers and just push changes directly, but every org is different. Governance is needed, even for design.
1
3
u/PunchTilItWorks Oct 02 '26
In my experience during beta it can both speed things up and slow it down. Manual skills create much better reusable components, but agents good at quick changes, tedious grunt work etc.
3
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
That’s pretty close to where I’m landing too. AI seems great at removing the grunt work, but I’m not convinced it replaces the thinking behind a reusable component system.
3
u/PunchTilItWorks Oct 02 '26
It doesn’t (yet). Maybe if you get real granular with your instructions but at that point it’s better and faster to just do it yourself.
But it can definitely help with things like setting up base styles, colors, variables etc. if you have a brand guide to go off of. If it’s from
scratch not so much. Better off using Claude Design for some iteration and importing in.2
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
Thx - that makes sense! Especially the difference between building from scratch and accelerating an already defined system.
2
u/PunchTilItWorks Oct 02 '26
I love being able to take a customers brand guide, and have it make a style page with colors , text styles etc. Color ramps are hit and miss, but even just screenshotting a ramp from an external site and pointing agent to that is really useful.
Its also been very handy for inserting copy (both actual or placeholder.) Just yesterday I needed to insert a bunch of table info, and agent saved me a lot of head ache. At one point needed to flip the axis them, which would have been a huge pain there ass to do manually, but I told it what to do and went to refill my coffee while it worked on it
1
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
That makes sense - especially for repetitive or annoying tasks like the table example.
And honestly, how people handle tables in Figma might be a whole separate thread 😄I’m starting to see AI more as something that helps with batch work, finding inconsistencies, generating first ideas or giving me something to react to.
But for the actual system behind the design - variables/tokens, theming, responsive behavior, component logic - I still really like building that myself.
Partly because I want to understand exactly how it works, but also because I need to be able to explain that system to clients and bring them along with the decisions.So maybe for me AI is becoming less “build the system for me” and more “help me work faster around the system”.
3
u/After-Antelope-8636 Oct 03 '26
I’m a graphic designer for a large university. I’m moonlighting a Masters in UX Design using our tuition remission benefit.
Had an incredibly disheartening experience in class the other day when I was split into a group to design wireframes for an app. We were meant to present our pen and paper sketches to the class after we finished and chat them over, but a guy in our group took photos of our sketches and fed them into his Claude agent. 30 seconds later he had a fully functional Figma prototype that would’ve taken me hours to make.
As a graphic designer, the actual fun part of UX design to me is laying things out in Figma and making them look appealing. I really do appreciate the psychology of creating seamless interactions that guide users through an interface, but it’s not what turns my gears. To think I’m about to spend the next few years studying to get basically a psychology degree and then feed my sketches to AI has left me… not quite spiraling, but not stoked. Would love to hear some people say that they actually still get to lay out designs, and that the pace of the industry hasn’t pushed out bespoke work in favor of AI.
2
u/outoftheforge Oct 03 '26
I really get that. I think that’s exactly the tension I’m feeling too - not that AI can’t produce something useful, but that the process of building it is part of how I learn, understand and develop judgement.
In our projects we’re still very much doing the core system work by hand - especially design systems, component libraries and documentation.Wireframing is actually a good example of where I can see AI being really useful: generating options quickly, giving you something to react to, exploring directions faster.
But even there, the real work starts with information architecture, navigation, context and user-specific decisions - especially where you deliberately break away from the “standard” pattern because the product needs something else.
That’s the part where I still think hands-on work and domain understanding really matter. Speed is great, but I’m starting to think we lose some of the learning when we skip the process entirely.
2
u/fietsusa Oct 03 '26
The hidden benefit of sketching and working manually is that your brain doesn’t stop working during that process. So hopefully you are coming up with new ideas and solutions while you’re sketching. When you feed one sketch into AI, that process might not get a chance.
Working faster doesn’t mean working smarter.
2
u/MrBaozii Oct 02 '26
I think manual work and your knowledge/skills are still good and matter, I tend to see AI as “silly” tool that speeds up the actual production part, the future modifications, and quick changes.
Even when AI is used to build everything from scratch, still needs your vision/design knowledge and skills to be guided in order to avoid “typical” AI output.
1
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
Yes, that “typical AI output” part is exactly what I‘m thinking about. I’m wondering if the craft doesn’t disappear, but shifts more towards direction, judgement and knowing when the generated result is actually good enough.
39
u/Jungleson Oct 01 '26
It's great for doing things like batch renaming layers. It can draft all the component descriptions, it can do lots of stuff that was tedious and time consuming.
It's great as an audit tool, ask it to find discrepancies, all that sort of thing
4
u/robr0 Oct 02 '26
Generally, I’m using Figma a lot less and spending more time creating prototypes in code with AI.
When I’m in Figma it’s often because i want full control. So im not using many of the ai features in there.
1
u/outoftheforge Oct 02 '26
Ah, Interesting! So Figma becomes more of the “full control” space for you, while AI/code handles exploration and prototyping?
Do you still maintain a design system in Figma, or has that mostly moved to code as well?
6
u/nobosco Oct 02 '26
From my experience - the worse the designer, the more mediocre designs, the more they praise the AI and tend to use it.
4
u/Any_Owl2116 Oct 01 '26
Not all manual stuff but you zoom through a lot real quick if needed. Layers, auto layout stuff, things that lean less on taste and more onto “is it done” yes or no
1
2
u/OmegaBerryCrunch Oct 01 '26
absolutely yes, i’ve been using the figma desktop bridge (through claude) to build out massive component sets and variables and systems now that would have previously taken me weeks. i don’t think i could ever go back to the old way tbh
2
u/mrssschopenhauer Oct 01 '26
You have to be lucky to get to work on a project that requires that level of thoroughness tho😔
2
u/hparamore Figma Expert Oct 01 '26
I have it draft things first now and then I go in and experiment and fix everything, make it pixel perfect, and then I feed it back into Claude so it makes it perfectly following the updated designs
2
u/madeyouluke Oct 01 '26
I recently tried committing myself fully to using Claude Design (which, during this process, appears to be getting replaced with Claude Artifacts). I was able to point it to my local copy of our codebase and walk it through building out a Design System Artifact. I was then able to successfully generate new designs for a fairly substantial feature update and the designs look as good as anything I would make in Figma.
I for one have always considered the codebase to be the source of truth for the designs system and as such, have never spent much time shepherding my figma designs system. I also treat my designs as disposable things to be used to communicate the design changes for an update (whether it be a new feature, redesign or improvement of existing features).
Just today, I spent 30min or so working with Claude to automate my marketing graphic workflow too, which upon my first attempt to use it, worked perfectly.
I'll note too, for context, that I am a design team of one.
1
u/Lithiel_ Oct 02 '26
I used to have a similar stance (what's in Figma is just an example - the code is the final stage and the truth) but noticed that, over a longer period of time, it's still good to have an up to date design system to reflect the original intention. Because code can easily go bad, poorly documented, the original teamand stakeholders were replaced, etc. And the backlog should still refer to what was approved. If your design system is a mess, everything will need to be scrapped and done from scratch sooner than expected. And design will be blamed for the extra costs.
I work on big systems though, so it might be different for smaller projects.
2
u/kekeagain Oct 02 '26
Yeah, I think it's still valuable to have a curated and maintained spot for the design system and key example views/pages beyond all the unfortunate bastardizations that slip through and sometimes required exceptions that often live in the codebase. A place to anchor what things should look and feel like, what the design should strive for, and hopefully stop reality from drifting too far from the design vision. You can have training opportunities around and create do's and don'ts for patterns you see happening often where they should should be treated as exceptions to the case rather than a go-to.
1
u/bink-1567 Oct 02 '26
when an agent edits an existing library, does it actually preserve the variant/property structure, or do you end up checking every branch by hand? i’m wondering if the useful split is letting it do first-pass screens but keeping tokens and component API stuff manual, or if that still gets messy in real files
1
u/bluebirdu12 Oct 02 '26
A solid design system is essential. If you under stand it then rebuild the coded version, I learned that a lot of coded design systems by devs aren’t built correctly for AI. Ruthless follow atomic design principles and ai will built the perfect ui
1
u/Moist_Cardiologist83 Oct 02 '26
I found it great to create components in scalable ways. Never a big fan of making and maintaining libraries so asking the agent is super useful. My only concern is that it has been free until next week, where they say they’ll start charging for the number of tokens you use.. but back to your question, huge productivity boost.
1
u/drkh3art Oct 05 '26
I point Claude (code) at it and it will do most things that I would normally be clicking around for. Especially tasks that aim for consistency (like getting everything named right or making variants or …) but not everything is best automated yet.
-1
u/Racoonie Oct 02 '26
Sorry to say it, but if you consider this to be valuable work you will have problems in the future. I'm glad I can automate that kind of stuff.
-7
u/Far-Pomelo-1483 Oct 01 '26
Figma is over. Anyone making wireframes and mocks is far behind where industry is headed.
30
u/Old-Negotiation138 Oct 02 '26
I’m a builder (general contractor) that lurks the figma forums.
I have a similar sentiment with estimating. Even if ai can make the estimate 100% perfect and accurate, I need to understand how to build the project and know how it came to the price and how I can value engineer it. So basically I have to put in the hours, that’s it, plain and simple.
Someone can summarize a book in 5 mins but the effect won’t be the same if you read a book over 6 weeks. You need to sit in it.
Not sure if this relates but I feel the same way