The workshops kept circling the same point: “design to dev handoff” is no longer just a Figma file plus annotations. When designers can prototype in real code, inspect the real codebase, and generate evolved specs from the working artifact, the handoff moves upstream and gets much more concrete.
The old pattern was familiar: Figma screens, callouts, redlines, and a meeting where design intent had to be reconstructed verbally. The newer pattern uses working prototypes and AI extraction to preserve more of that intent before it reaches engineering.
Handoff is not “solved” just because the prototype is code. The handoff becomes less lossy, but the team still needs a clear package of decisions, constraints, and ownership boundaries so engineering knows what is locked and what is still flexible.
That changes the handoff conversation. Instead of only describing what the screen should look like, the designer can help define how the system should behave, what component patterns it uses, and where the implementation constraints actually are.
Once the prototype exists as HTML, CSS, and interactions, AI can read it and surface design decisions that would otherwise stay trapped inside the artifact.
The workshops were explicit here: Cursor + Claude Code can generate toward Angular Material conventions when the prompt and codebase context are specific enough.
With AI in the loop, a designer can ask what components already exist, what variants are available, and where a new idea would conflict with the current system.
Component inventories, interaction notes, acceptance criteria updates, and implementation caveats can be extracted from the prototype instead of authored from scratch after every review.
The hard part is no longer copying pixels into tickets. It is deciding which prototype choices are real requirements, which are provisional, and which conflict with the production system.
The artifact should help engineering start with fewer interpretation loops, while still being honest about what needs review.
If a coded prototype exists, it should be part of the handoff. This is where layout decisions, interaction behavior, and visible states are most legible.
Extract the design decisions the prototype implies: what is locked, what needs revisiting, what requirements appear to be missing, and what engineering constraints are already visible.
Call out whether the work should map to existing Angular Material components, team-specific overrides, or genuinely new patterns.
The handoff should not pretend every choice is finished. Unresolved tradeoffs need to be surfaced so development does not treat prototype guesses as production mandates.
Add a status to every prototype decision: locked, preferred, or exploratory. That single label prevents engineering from treating every visual choice as a production requirement.
This is where the page needs to stay sober. AI shortens the distance between design and implementation, but it does not eliminate the need for developer review, integration judgment, and production constraints.
Design can now hand over richer artifacts: code prototypes, clearer state models, and better-articulated decisions.
Engineering still decides how the artifact maps into the production architecture, component library, API contracts, and release constraints.
The best handoff is a shared review moment where both sides can point at concrete code-backed behavior instead of debating static frames abstractly.
Page takeaway: Handoff still exists, but the artifact has changed. In an AI-native workflow, the handoff is no longer “here are the screens.” It is “here is the working direction, here are the extracted decisions, and here is how this should meet the real system.”
Phase 03 — Design + Build. The handoff bridges prototype decisions into the implementation phase of the SDLC.
Scroll right to see full pipeline →