Design share

Design — Share

Get the prototype in front of reviewers with a working link + clear run notes. Final handoff stage. The goal is that someone who wasn't involved can open it, know what to look at, and leave useful feedback — without you in the room.

When to use

• A QA'd prototype is ready to circulate for feedback.
• "Share it", "give me a link", "publish", "let the team see it".
• Handing off to stakeholders for review/sign-off.

When NOT to use

• The prototype hasn't passed design-qa (especially HIGH items) — fix or explicitly flag first.
• It's not runnable yet → design-prototype.

Inputs

• The QA'd prototype (path).
• Share method: local serve, tunnel, or deploy to a host.
• Host/account constraints — ask before deploying anywhere external.

Workflow

1. Confirm it runs clean: install + build + start. Fix any breakers before sharing.
2. Pick the share method:
   • Local — serve on a port; give the localhost URL + start command (good for solo/local review).
   • Tunnel — expose local via a tunnel; only if the user wants external access right now.
   • Deploy — push to a preview host (Vercel/Netlify/etc.). Only with explicit user go-ahead, since it sends code off-machine.
3. Write a review note: what to look at, the happy path to click, known stubs/TODOs, where to leave feedback.
4. Return the link + run instructions + review note.

Worked example

method: local serve (user wants to review on their machine)
preflight: `npm install` ok, `npm run build` clean, `npm run dev` boots :5173 ✓
deliverable:
  link: http://localhost:5173
  run:  `npm install && npm run dev`
  review this: complete the onboarding happy path (Welcome → Template → Name → Dashboard);
               check the empty-name error and the loading state on "Create"
  known stubs: templates are 3 fixtures; "Create" writes to in-memory store (no real API yet)
  feedback: leave notes in #design-review or as comments on the Figma frame

(If deploy was requested: confirm host, check for secrets/env files, deploy, return the live URL + same review note.)

Quality bar

• The link actually works and the app boots from a clean clone (you verified install→build→run).
• The reviewer is told exactly what to click and what's stubbed — no guessing.
• Any unresolved QA items are surfaced honestly, not hidden.
• For deploys: confirmed with the user, and no secrets/env files published.

Common pitfalls

• Sharing something that doesn't boot — always run install→build→start from clean first.
• Deploying without consent — external deploy/tunnel sends code off-machine; that's a high-impact action requiring explicit go-ahead. Flag if the repo may contain secrets.
• Publishing secrets — check for .env, keys, credentials before any deploy.
• No review guidance — a bare link with no "look at this" yields vague feedback.
• Hiding known issues — silently sharing a prototype with HIGH QA failures wastes reviewers' trust.

Handoff

This is the terminal stage. Feedback typically loops back to design-prototype (changes) or design-ideate (rethink). If the prototype is approved, it becomes the reference for engineering build-out.

Tooling

Local serve needs the project's dev server only. Tunnel/deploy needs the relevant CLI (and user consent). No special tool for the review note — it's written guidance.