How to use a Righthand with Figma
Prepare a reviewed design-comment and version handoff from approved Figma inputs, with a worked example, complete brief, access checks, and reconciliation.
Quick answer
Use approved Figma file, node, version, and comment references to prepare a design handoff for the responsible designer. The first deliverable should show which feedback belongs to which object and revision, without changing the design.
Start with a design-comment and version handoff that the design owner can check against the original records. Righthand prepares the review artifact; the source application remains the operational record.
Establish the input route
Figma’s REST API introduction describes files as node structures and links references for files, versions, and comments. Official Figma reference, checked October 6, 2026.
The designer should approve the file scope and provide a permitted extract or selected references. Verify actual operation support and file permissions for a connected route. Keep restricted client designs out of a broader team report unless their owner approves that audience.
Check the current integration directory and Righthand setup documentation. A listed app does not establish every read or write action. For a connected route, verify the assigned account, available operation, object scope, and one permitted sample read. This guide also works from an explicitly supplied, approved extract; it does not require an unverified native operation. Keep credentials out of the article brief.
Worked input and output
These three records are synthetic illustrations, not customer results or a hands-on integration test.
| Approved input | Proposed review output |
|---|---|
| FG11: comment names button on version V1; current review uses V2 | Flag version context before applying the feedback |
| FG12: two nodes share name Primary Button | Keep node IDs distinct in the handoff |
| FG13: comment resolved; implementation receipt missing | Separate design discussion state from implementation evidence |
The handoff should let the designer navigate to the intended object. FG12 illustrates why a layer name is not a durable identity. FG13 should remain an engineering handoff question: resolving design feedback does not prove that the accepted design appears in the built product.
A complete first-run brief
Use an approved Figma node/comment extract and design version register for October 12–16, 2026. Fields: file key, node ID, node name, version reference, comment reference, comment time, reviewer, handoff requirement. At Monday 9 AM America/Los_Angeles, prepare a design-comment and version handoff as source-linked Markdown in my private review thread. Preserve record identities and the extract timestamp. Group unresolved items by next action and responsible owner. Reviewer: design owner. Do not edit designs, resolve comments, publish libraries, change permissions, or promise implementation completion. Result check: Match file/node/version references and have the designer verify each comment’s intended object and revision.
A permitted preparation step does not authorize a consequential write or an external send. Resolve proposed changes through the app's supported process after the responsible owner approves their exact scope.
Reconcile before widening the task
A copied screenshot can hide the version and node context needed for review. Request those references instead of inferring which current layer it depicts. A file permission gap should also be reported as unavailable evidence; a visible title does not establish access to its underlying design.
Trial the handoff with one screen at the next design review. Ask the designer to locate FG12’s two nodes and resolve FG11’s version context. Broaden to additional screens only after the team can trace each feedback item and identify the owner of the next handoff.
For the first acceptance review, keep the original input slice beside the result and mark which items were checked. If access or evidence is incomplete, return that gap with its record identity rather than a confident completion statement. Review Pricing using the actual preparation workload and correction effort.