Designers are frequently advised to simply "vibe-code" their way through projects, but this well-intentioned advice often results in products that break immediately after shipping. While vibe-coding is a viable tool for quick side-projects or late-stage aesthetic polish, it is not a substitute for the structural work required in enterprise systems. After a year of integrating AI agentic workflows into my process, I’ve realized that the secret to high-fidelity output isn't a "better" model; it is better context.
Why is planning more important than prompting?
AI often struggles in enterprise design because the instructions aren't clear enough, not because the AI isn't smart. Recent guidelines show that detailed plans lead to better results because they give AI a clear path to follow.
For complex projects, I always start with a base prompt that follows the equation, Role + Context + Task + Constraints, that answers four questions:
1. Who is this for and what is the role of the model in this project? (Role)
2. What's the situation? (Context)
3. What needs to be done? (Task)
4. What are the limits? (Constraints)
Instead of typing casual instructions into a chat box, I turn this equation into a structured file. This becomes the "ground truth" for the AI. For Lovable, it is usually the starting prompt; for Claude it is the If the output misses the mark, I iterate on the file. I also maintain a record of all the prompts, base prompt and the subsequent iterations. High-performing designers in 2026 treat prompts as documentation, ensuring that every subsequent agent-generated component inherits these local constraints.
The single change that improved our output was attaching three annotated Figma screenshots to every base prompt. The AI stopped inventing components we didn't use. Visual examples act as a clear guide: instead of relying on lengthy written descriptions, they show the AI exactly what you need and cut down on repeated revisions significantly.
By formalizing the prep phase, you solve the "context gap" before the first token is generated. This shift from casual writer to structured editor is the defining characteristic of senior design roles in the AI era.
How do you connect the AI to your real design system?
In enterprises, "fidelity" isn't about how something looks, it's about how well the system works. When AI knows your design rules, names, and parts, it creates code that needs much less fixing. I share our design system files with the AI, including our colors, fonts, icons, and button styles. I also add old Figma designs so the AI can learn how we use our design system.
When AI understands your design system, it follows your rules. For example, if your button component only allows four styles, the AI won't create a purple gradient that breaks your brand rules. This saves time—you fix fewer mistakes and focus on real user problems. A well-integrated AI acts like a teammate, not just a tool.
Why should prototypes be treated like production code?
The era of the "throwaway prototype" is ending. When nearly half the codebase is AI-generated, designers who can't write clear specs become the bottleneck, not the engineers. Enterprise designers are increasingly responsible for ensuring that "vibe prototypes" don't become technical debt. If your prototype is built using the same component library and standards as your production app, the transition from "idea" to "shipped feature" becomes a matter of merging a branch rather than rebuilding from scratch.
I'm testing AI tools to match designs with technical systems sooner. Right now, teams waste too much time checking if designs can actually be built. Problems often appear late, slowing everything down. Using AI to map user flows will make this smoother. Prototypes should be checked as thoroughly as final code. Store all design details, how things work, accessibility needs, and logic where both engineers and AI can find them.
This change matters because the next person using your design might be an AI. If the instructions aren't clear enough for AI, they won't work for a global team either.
By treating the prototype as code, we also unlock automated testing. We can run accessibility audits and visual regression tests against the prototype itself. This ensures that when the design reaches the "review" stage, we aren't just looking at pretty pictures; we are looking at a functional, stable piece of software that has already survived the first layer of enterprise quality control. This is where "fast" starts to scale, by eliminating the rework loop that usually plagues the transition from design to development.
How does the prototype serve as the design review?
The prototype isn't just part of the review. It becomes the main review. When design, product, and engineering teams test real interactions before coding begins, we avoid big changes later. Switching from static Figma files to working AI prototypes cut our design-to-dev rework from roughly three revision cycles down to one. Not always, but consistently enough that engineering stopped dreading our handoffs.
This approach solves problems early. We test how things actually work instead of debating static images. It shows us security risks, slow data loads, and performance issues that Figma can't reveal. Design joins technical discussions from the start. If the AI shows a data table won't work with our system, we fix it immediately and not weeks later.
This openness builds trust with engineers. When they see designs already built in their own tools, barriers disappear. We stop asking "Can we do this?" and start asking "How can we make it better?" This changes everything for teams that used to struggle with handing off work. Now, we all work together on the same evolving project.
Honest reflections on AI in the design loop
After iterating on these workflows for months, three truths stand out:
AI gets the big picture, but expects you to handle the details. It can architect a flow, but it won’t catch every edge case in your specific enterprise permissions model. Expect to spend your time fine-tuning.
Context beats model power every time. A detailed base prompt following the Role + Context + Task + Constraints format along with supporting visual files will outperform a generic prompt every single time, irrespective of the length. The goal is better context, not more words.
Explicitly list components or patterns the AI model should never use or modify. It keeps the model focused on the task without touching core global styles — a small discipline that saves significant cleanup time.
Collaboration norms are still catching up. We are in a transitional phase. Designers who excel at writing clear specs and maintaining living documentation are essentially "pre-training" for a future where agents do the heavy lifting.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do I maintain prompt quality as my project grows and evolves?
Treat your base prompt file the way engineers treat a changelog. Every time you iterate on it, note what changed and why. Over time this log becomes a living record of your design decisions — and when a new team member or agent picks up the project, they inherit the reasoning, not just the output.
Do I need to know React to use these workflows?
You don't need to be a senior engineer, but you do need to understand component architecture. The more you understand how a design system is structured in code, the better you can "pre-prompt" the AI to give you usable results.
How do I start if my company doesn't have a structured design system?
Start by documenting your core patterns in a Markdown file. Even a simple list of HEX codes, spacing tokens, and naming conventions can significantly improve AI output. You are essentially building a "mini" system to give the AI the context it craves.
Discussion