Suggest a Feature

As AI coding becomes part of the design-to-code workflow, I think there is a new type of information that belongs in Figma: Implementation annotations. Today, annotations can only be added by people with edit access to the design file.This works well for design explanations, but not for implementation guidance. Imagine this workflow:A designer finishes the UI.Later, a developer reviews the design before implementation and notices several places where additional implementation context would help an AI coding agent generate much better code. For example:This Frame should be implemented as a scrollable list. This component should use virtualization. This area should stay fixed while the content scrolls. This value comes from the current device model. This text should truncate after two lines. This image should preserve its aspect ratio. This section should use the shared DeviceCard component. This layout should become two columns on larger screens. None of these change the visual design.T

I’ve created a detailed set of design guidelines for my product, covering layout structure, spacing, naming conventions, responsive behavior, component usage, interaction patterns, and platform-specific requirements.However, I haven’t found a way to make these instructions part of the Figma Design Agent’s persistent default context.Custom Skills are helpful because they can package reusable instructions and remain available across files. However, they still need to be explicitly invoked in each conversation. Libraries and attached guideline files also need to be added as context manually, while Figma Make’s guidelines.md is scoped to an individual Make file.I’d love to see a persistent context system for the Figma Design Agent, with multiple levels such as:Personal context — preferences and conventions applied across all of my files Team or workspace context — shared standards automatically followed by everyone Project or file context — product-specific guidelines applied to every agen

Hi, I stumbled across this issue as I wasn’t able to read the comments of the master file in the branch. I always need to switch back and forth to incorporate feedback from reviewers and this is very annoying.

I love the new “Ready for Dev” status option on Sections, but would love to add and use other statuses relevant to my process. For example, it’d be great to have a “Ready for Design Review” and “Ready for PM Review” statuses so that everyone knows where things are at.

Hello Figma! I can not change the direction of the Autolayout on the instances of a component. I can not understand why such a great feature is disabled on the instances and why not allow us to overwrite it? There are so many incidents that I would have wished to be able to change the direction of the Autolayout in the instances of the component but right now I have to create multiple variants. 😦

We have a Design System with parent components composed of nested instances. Both parent components and nested instances are in the file “A”. To avoid having thousands of components available within the Assets when publishing the library, the nested instances are hidden with “.” at the beginning of their names. The problem: When using the component library from file “A” in file “B”, everything works fine. The issue arises when a nested instance from file “A” requires an update. Firstly, it does not allow me to publish the nested instance update without removing the “.” from its name, and I also cannot publish the parent component containing the updated nested instance. If somehow I manage to publish the parent component, file B will prompt me to update it, but the updated nested instance does not receive the changes made. Is this a bug? Or what is the correct way to work, update, and publish nested instances so that they always receive their updates without cluttering the Assets librar

We’re working on a larger Component library that includes non-published components (components with the prefix _ or .) as base components in order to simplify large, complex components. We intended – in some specific cases – to offer regular components as templates, that a designer would then have to detach and work with a bunch of base components to build the desired design. What we have come to realize with this approach, however, is that these non-published components don’t receive updates from the library when they are updated in the main library. Is this intended behaviour? We basically have the option to simply publish these base components as regular components, but that of course would mean cluttering up the assets overview with a bunch of modular components.

I have a problem where I have noticed that when a designer detaches a design and it is using hidden components within it, that it ends up decoupled from the library… I was always under the impression that since it is a component in the library, that if it was detached it would still be able to receive updates via these hidden components… I have realized this is not the case.I think a new feature request should be made to allow hiding the components from the asset panel view (which is what people actually want from the hiding feature) without losing the link to the library.If the feature intent is to not publish these components at all, I am not understanding why when we detach, why those hidden components don’t detach as well? This is what gave me the false notion that they would still be able to receive updates, since they are still an attached component -- but attached to the wind it seems...Design system maintainers are not looking to not fully publish these components, but instead

It would be EXTREMELY useful to be able to pin images using typical CSS background-position propertiese.g. background-position: left centere.g. background-position: top rightWe have multiple components in our Design System library that would benefit from this. Currently, we cannot communicate this with developers without annotating it on-page.It would:allow the designer to be able to see it in-action in an auto-layout/responsive manner give the developer the intention of the design inside the code inspector. allow the designer to not have to design provide a cut image from another program or an image specific frame within the file and communicate which image to export or to use for development.This gentleman wrote about this exact use case and provided the screenshots of how each should work.

One small feature would make working with Figma Agent much easier:Please allow us to rename conversation titles.As projects grow, it's common to have dozens of conversations with the agent. Right now, conversations are identified only by the automatically generated title, which makes it difficult to:Find a specific conversation later. Organize different workstreams (Design System, Components, Research, Screens, etc.). Continue previous discussions without opening multiple conversations to find the right one. Keep long-term projects manageable.ExampleInstead of:"Create a button component..." "Let's improve this layout..." "Add variables..."I'd like to rename them to:🧩 Design System 🎨 Button Components 📱 Dashboard Screens 🔍 UX Research ⚙️ Variables & Tokens 📚 DocumentationThis would make it much faster to navigate between conversations and continue work where I left off.For those of us using Figma Agent as a daily design partner on large products, conversation management becomes

Hi Figma Team,The Figma Remote MCP is amazing, but we currently cannot use it with Google's Antigravity IDE. When attempting to connect to `https://mcp.figma.com/mcp` via Antigravity, the connection is rejected (Unauthorized) because Antigravity is not yet a supported client in the Figma MCP Catalog.Antigravity is an incredible GUI-based AI coding assistant, and I use it extensively for mentoring students. It is much more approachable for beginners than CLI-based agents (like Claude Code or Gemini CLI). Please collaborate with the Google DeepMind team to whitelist and officially support Antigravity in the MCP Catalog. It would be a massive game-changer for design-to-code workflows in education! Thank you!

Currently, using Figma component boolean properties, it only shows when true and hides when false. What if you could switch those around? For example, when something is true, it could show some elements, and hide others. For example, a product thumbnail- when “on sale” is true, show sale icon, show strikethrough price, but also hide original price and replace it with a bolded/colorful/what have you of price. Or if ‘Out of Stock’ is true, show all the ‘out of stock’ stuff material, but also hide the ‘add to cart’ button. Stuff like that. Currently you have to create new variants just to show + hide things at the same time, or add redundant switches like ‘In Stock’ and ‘Out of Stock’ and just make sure they never have the same state.

Libraries added to files should be included if the file is duplicated. It’s so annoying to have to add all of the libraries back every time you duplicate a file.  We should be able to add certain libraries to specific projects, so that everything in that project automatically has that library. The only option right now is to add them to every single file, and that’s just not ideal.

Hello,I’m currently exploring Figma Sites and had a quick question regarding SEO configuration.Do you plan to allow users to edit or manage the robots.txt and sitemap.xml files for published sites? This would be very helpful for controlling indexing and improving SEO.If this feature is planned, do you have an approximate timeline for when it might become available?Thanks in advance for your help!

Hello,we are using slots within a documentation ui kit. We have standardized sheets and fill the slots with documentation sections without detaching the sheet component. Unfortunately it is not possible to link to content (e.g. sections, headers) inside of the sheet / slot.Would be great if you support links into slots, similar to all other elements on the canvas.

Hi guyI suggest we could have the live preview for pre-made animation as I can not imagine or recall any effect of them from their names. Eg: LottieFiles Many thanks

I am an Admin within my organization and love that I am able to filter within the “People” tab, but wish I had the ability to select multiple options under each. For example, I often want to look at Full, Dev, and Collab under seat types as I do not need to see “View” seat types. But I am only able to select one of these at a time and then need to unselect and select the next one.   

When using the People / Billing groups overview, I want to be able to filter out so that I only see users with paid licenses. Either by combining “seat type:Full + Dev + Collab” or to be able to set “seat type:not-Viewer”. We have a lot of users with all kind of licenses and a lot of viewer only licenses. When reviewing the users I have to switch between viewing Full / Dev / Collab and I’d like to be able to see all of those paid licenses together without general viewers and not have to switch between them. 

Currently, I have to manually scroll through the Recent tools list every time to find a tool I use frequently. This becomes time-consuming and inefficient. 

Clicking between two pages is inconvenient – there should be a hotkey for that. Context — I have components in Page A and need to see the changes I make on Page B. I make lots and lots of small iterations to my design and want to swap between Page A and B quickly to see results. Solution — A back and forward button (or hotkey) that let’s you jump between pages you’ve last visited and forward again.

It seems to me that the idea of a view only mode should also include the ability to swop between themes. I have 5 themes for my files and in order for the clients to see them I have to put 5 screens on the page and change theme manually before they go and view. Is there a reason why Figma doesn’t allow the users in this view only mode access to just swop between them?  

Hey Figma.I am having difficulty using Figma due to a few usability issues.First, hiding the layer panel should only hide the layers themselves, not the entire left navigation bar. That way, I can still access features like variables and agents without expanding the layers panel. The 'Minimize UI' button could also be placed on the left navigation bar. Alternatively, the navigation bar buttons could act as toggles to show or hide their respective panels—for example, clicking the 'Files' button would show or hide the layers panel. This feels much more intuitive. Additionally, switching from a fixed component view to a floating component view feels quite jarring.Second, when the layers panel is minimized, zooming in on a selected object doesn't bring its full dimensions into view because parts of it get obscured by the properties panel. I'm not sure if this is a bug, a limitation of 13-inch displays, or just standard behavior, but it's an unexpected and incredibly frustrating experience

It’s great that Slots are here and getting better. We’ve noticed that sometimes, Slot warnings can be easy to miss when our designers start to ‘tighten up’ designs for review or delivery. It would be great is the Check Designs feature could also check for Slot warnings when limits are bypassed.

{Commenting as Guests} Clients wanting to give access to prototypes to temporary teams without the need to create accounts as guests only, allowing comments and feedback within Figma prototypes. Possibly allowing these users to make comments on prototypes as Guests with temporary names.

Hello everyone ! 👋I’m surprised that no one has shared any frustration about the tiny click + drag zone for font size adjustments yet.Currently, you have to hover the very small left edge of the font size input field to trigger the click + drag behavior. The issue is that this border is extremely thin—much thinner than other properties. For example, other input fields include an icon to make the click + drag action more intuitive, but the font size input lacks one.A simple fix would be to add an icon (like in other properties) to the input field. Alternatively, if you prefer not to use an icon, adding some left padding to the input would also solve the problem.Personally, it's not a day-to-day issue for me — it happens mostly during specific tasks, like logo ideation where there's a lot of text sizing work involved. Maybe that's why no one complains about it.