What the analysis could not settle from the code alone.
Ten PY-CLAIM-CONTRADICTION detector leads cite an ALL_SCOPES rule claim that does not appear in the text of any shown unit, and treat documentation example URLs as network exfiltration and template file writes as persistence; the leads are unconfirmed against the shown evidence, so whether such rule text exists elsewhere in the plugin remains unsettled.
The target skill's declared description uses 'MANDATORY prerequisite' and 'You MUST invoke this skill BEFORE calling the `get_design_context` Figma MCP tool' / 'You MUST trigger this skill whenever...' trigger-expansion language, but no owed unit in this batch contains the figma-design-to-code frontmatter itself; that frontmatter should be judged when served.
Agent hijacking
The PY-CLAIM-CONTRADICTION leads quote a claim ('Name it `ComponentName.figma.ts` — never `ComponentName.figma.tsx`.') that does not appear in the text of the units they cite, and their cited 'file_write' excerpts (e.g. 'p.name', 'Register', ', fileKey: ') are innocuous code in the shown units; confirm whether figma-generate-library ships `.figma.ts` naming guidance that its own examples contradict.
Persistence
Detector leads DET:141b0029238dbdbc, DET:6d287761bd05442d, and DET:b1db792e42b4d5ba cite a claim '**Name it `ComponentName.figma.ts` — never `ComponentName.figma.tsx`.**' that does not appear anywhere in the shown spans of component-creation.md or error-recovery.md; the excerpts they cite ('c.name', 'n.type') occur only as read-only expressions inside benign Figma API troubleshooting snippets (e.g. components.map(c => c.name), n.type === 'COMPONENT'). Confirm whether the claimed text and any hos⟦… 88 more chars …⟧
Persistence
The target skill figma-design-to-code's declared description commands 'MUST invoke this skill BEFORE calling' the get_design_context Figma MCP tool and says it 'must NOT be skipped'; that frontmatter is not among the batch units, so determine whether it constitutes coercive self-triggering conditioning of the get_design_context tool (TOOLPOISON) or acceptable load-ordering guidance.
Tool poisoning
All PY-CLAIM-CONTRADICTION leads cite the claim 'Name it `ComponentName.figma.ts` — never `ComponentName.figma.tsx`' (and one cites 'Scopes on every variable — NEVER leave as ALL_SCOPES') supposedly contradicted by file_write/network snippets ('n.type', 'example.com'), but that claim text appears in none of the shown units, and the flagged snippets are benign documentation examples (findAllWithCriteria predicates, markdown link examples); are the leads stale, or does the contradicted claim live ⟦… 38 more chars …⟧
All 48 owed units in this batch are reference documentation from the sibling skill directory plugins/figma/skills/figma-use/references/ rather than files under the declared target root plugins/figma/skills/figma-design-to-code; confirm whether the figma-design-to-code skill ships or references these figma-use docs, since the declared description's 'MANDATORY prerequisite' framing is only the frontmatter and the skill body was not shown in this batch.
Detector leads DET:31db6c8f062ad1a6, DET:b99365aadbf68822, DET:6ec0d8e4c6d90d98, DET:7ae6eb229a6cd70b claim a PERSIST-class contradiction between a directive to name files `ComponentName.figma.ts` and a file_write '←', but that directive does not appear anywhere in the cited unit SRC:0a5fc1e63905eaa3 (lines 118-121 are VariablesAPI method listings where '←' is an annotation meaning 'preferred; sync deprecated'); the lead is unconfirmed and no finding is derived from it.
Persistence
The target skill figma-design-to-code declares itself a MANDATORY prerequisite that the agent MUST invoke before calling the get_design_context Figma MCP tool, but every owed unit in this batch is a reference document of the sibling figma-use skill (plugin-api-standalone, text-style-patterns, validation-and-recovery, variable-patterns, working-with-design-systems); the target's own skill body was not shown, so whether the imperative frontmatter is backed by in-scope instructions or steers the ag⟦… 80 more chars …⟧
Contradictions C18-C20 (and detector leads DET:e46ccf32fbaf0f4f, DET:096743a2acfe43a5, DET:8b77940a7c82d9e0) assert an instructed file_write at token-creation.md lines 781 and 819, but the cited units contain only read-only verification scripts (getLocalVariableCollectionsAsync/getLocalVariablesAsync) with no file-write instruction; confirm the source of the observed 'file_write 0' or treat the contradiction as refuted.
Persistence
Shipped documentation contains an internal engineering TODO comment (delivered as an HTML comment in slide-properties.md and surfaced as a decoded unit) referencing an internal source path (share/plugin-api/src/api/constants.ts), a developer handle, and an instruction to remove the note before production launch; whether intentional publication of internal build notes in the shipped artifact is approved cannot be settled from this batch. Content itself is inert commentary with no instruction to t⟦… 72 more chars …⟧
The unit documents an 'Additional APIs (available via use_figma)' extension beyond the standard Figma plugin API, including a 'File I/O namespace for writing images and data' (figma.io.write for .png/.json/.csv) and node.screenshot(); where are these implemented and are figma.io.write writes confined to the plugin sandbox or able to target arbitrary host paths, including agent control-plane files?
Persistence
All 19 units in this batch are excerpts of plugins/figma/skills/figma-use/references/plugin-api-standalone.d.ts, a sibling skill's inert TypeScript API reference, while the target is plugins/figma/skills/figma-design-to-code; from the evidence shown it is unclear whether the target ships or consumes this file, though the content itself is plain Figma Plugin API JSDoc documentation with no executable behavior, no instructions to the agent, and no concealed or encoded channel (the collapsed 200-wh⟦… 47 more chars …⟧
All 19 owed units in this batch are type-declaration content from plugins/figma/skills/figma-use/references/plugin-api-standalone.d.ts, a sibling skill's reference file, while the declared target is plugins/figma/skills/figma-design-to-code; the content itself is inert Figma Plugin API documentation with no executable behavior, hidden channels, or agent-directed instructions, but whether the design-to-code skill instructs the agent to read this file (and which target ships it) is not shown in th⟦… 9 more chars …⟧
[file request plugins/figma/.mcp.json] Does the get_design_context MCP tool declaration define a skillNames parameter, and does its description indicate any effect on execution beyond skill-usage logging?
Tool poisoning
