← Back to work

AssetGate · Independent work · Figma plugin

Design and development of a Figma plugin

Define the standard, let the machine run it, report without editing. A working MVP, open source.

The AssetGate plugin panel: 100% pass rate, 0 must-fix, 24 suggestions
  • Independent work · Working MVP
  • Figma plugin · Vanilla JavaScript · Zero dependencies
  • Open source (MIT) · Installs locally

01

Goal

Design files pile up, especially screens produced by generation tools, faster than anyone can check their naming, nesting and types layer by layer. Readable by people, useless to machines: no batch export, no clean hand-off, no reusable assets. What I wanted was a quality gate before hand-off: write the standard once, let a machine run it ten thousand times.

Flow · With and without a gate
Two workflows compared: without a gate, problems surface after hand-off; with AssetGate, non-compliant files are sent back for tidying before hand-off

02

My role

Defining the rules and result tiers, the plugin interface and interaction, and testing against real files round after round to remove false positives until it was usable.

03

Key decisions

Trust first. Every finding shows the exact standard it violates, clicking it jumps to the layer, and the panel permanently states that it only inspects and never edits. The five things a machine cannot judge are spelled out at the top rather than pretended away. The standard belongs to the user. The plugin provides the ability to define a convention and enforce it, not one particular convention. Every setting is a plain-language checkbox. Only rules a machine can judge objectively. Definite violations count toward the pass rate; heuristics are suggestions only. Better to under-report than misreport. Three rounds on test files; every false positive found in those files has been fixed.

UI · Setup and results
The two AssetGate views: setup with plain-language checkboxes and the five things it cannot judge stated at the top; results with the pass rate and issues grouped by standard

04

Visible result

A comparison on one test sample: generated with no naming convention at all, 88 layers and 88 must-fix; regenerated by the same tool with the team naming convention supplied, then checked again, zero must-fix and 24 suggestions left. The plugin only inspects; the fixes came from regenerating to the convention, not from the plugin editing anything. The machine judges whether a rule is broken and hands "would this be better" back to a person as a suggestion. The plugin is open source and installs locally.

Result · Two files compared
Two files compared: raw output at 88 layers with 88 must-fix; the same design regenerated to spec with 0 must-fix and 24 suggestions