Anthropic's Figma plugin listing, checked October 24, 2026, describes design-file access for Claude Code. Figma's MCP tool reference describes design context, screenshots, variables and component mappings. A listing or pasted URL does not establish that your current session can access the file. Confirm the integration is connected and can read the intended node before relying on it.
Identify the frame and the existing code
Use a link to the actual frame or component. A whole-file link can leave several desktop variants, mobile variants and obsolete explorations equally plausible. Name the intended variant and the existing application route or component as well.
This original fictional handoff concerns an equipment reservation panel:
| Handoff item | Supplied requirement |
|---|---|
| Frame | Reservation panel, desktop, ready state |
| Existing component | ReservationPanel in the project |
| Existing controls | Reuse the project's Button and InlineNotice |
| On submit | Disable another submission while the request is pending |
| On failure | Keep entered dates and show the returned permitted error text |
| On success | Show the confirmed reservation reference |
The table supplies behavior for the exercise. It is not information inferred from the appearance of the green button. The actual service contract, file paths and component props still need to come from your project.
Ask for context before implementation
Implement the specified Figma reservation panel in this repository.
Exact frame URL and intended variant: [PASTE]
Existing component/route files: [ENTER ACTUAL PATHS]
Existing Button, InlineNotice and design-system rules: [POINT TO FILES]
Service interface and allowed response states: [PASTE]
Required pending, error, success and narrow-screen behavior: [ENTER]
First read the frame through the available Figma integration and
inspect the existing components. Name the node and variant retrieved.
If access fails, report what you could not read before proposing code.
Use existing component mappings where available; explain any missing
mapping. Separate observed frame details from behavior supplied here.
Do not invent API endpoints, assets, breakpoints or component props.
Return the proposed files and how to verify the required states.
Keep unrelated screens unchanged. Do not publish or deploy.
If the result names a different frame, correct that before adjusting spacing. If it proposes a new button component, check whether it missed the existing mapping or whether the design genuinely requires an unsupported variant. A screenshot helps compare appearance; the component source determines which props are usable.
Review the states the frame leaves open
In a running local implementation, submit once and inspect the pending state. A second click should not initiate another submission under this fixture's requirement. Exercise a permitted failure response and confirm that the dates remain available for correction. Then inspect a success response and its reference.
Those are acceptance checks for the eventual implementation, not observed test results from this article. Keep the exact response fixtures and actual outcomes with the code review. An attractive ready-state screenshot cannot establish error handling.
Check the layout at the intended narrow width with realistic labels, not just the short sample names. Ask the designer about any responsive behavior missing from the frame; shrinking the desktop design is a choice, not a documented specification.
If the task runs in the opposite direction, from a built page into design work, opening HTML in Figma covers that handoff. Here, finish with the repository diff, the identified design node and the observed component states. Keep the behavioral requirements beside that implementation so the next design revision does not erase them.