Build and maintain a component library — propose, design, build, document, and ship tokens and components in lockstep across design and code.
Design-systems teams keeping design and engineering in sync.
Quick answer
The Design system template is a ready-made workspace for Design-systems teams keeping design and engineering in sync.
Design system template in short
Included when you apply it
Applying this template creates the 1 board below — with every list — and pre-loads 3 sample issues, all yours to edit. The automation rules further down are suggestions you can wire up next; they aren't created for you yet.
A preview of how this template lays out — the boards, their custom workflow states, and where the sample issues land. WIP caps show a badge.
Components
Combobox component — design + a11y spec
Migrate spacing to the new density tokens
Document the toast component usage
These rules aren't created when you apply the template — they're recipes you can wire up in Settings → Automations once your board exists.
When
Component moves to 'In code'
Then
Notify the engineering owner and link the Figma spec
When
Component moves to 'Shipped'
Then
Post a changelog entry to the design-system channel
Proposed, In design, In code, Documenting, Shipped. Documenting is a required state rather than a follow-up task, and that is the whole thesis: an undocumented component is not a component, it is a file that two people know about. Design systems do not fail because the components are bad — they fail because consumers cannot find them, cannot tell which of three similar things to use, and quietly build a fourth. The pipeline running from design through code to docs in one lane is the other half: a component that exists in Figma but not in the library is a promise the codebase has not made.
A component earns its place when the same pattern has appeared in three places, not when someone anticipates it might. Premature components are the main source of a bloated system: they are designed against imagined requirements, then either go unused or need breaking changes as soon as reality arrives. Record where the pattern was found on the card.
Keyboard interaction, focus order, roles and labels, contrast, and the behaviour of every state belong in the design spec. Discovering during implementation that a component's interaction model has no keyboard equivalent means redesigning it, not patching it. This is the single most common source of rework in a component pipeline.
The reason In design and In code are adjacent states of one card rather than parallel tracks is that a component is not done in either discipline alone. When they are tracked separately, the two drift: the Figma version gains a variant the code does not have, and consumers get whichever they happened to look at. One card, two states, one definition of done.
Documentation that lists props is reference material. What consumers actually need is the decision — when to use this rather than the similar-looking one next to it, and what it is not for. A system with good API docs and no usage guidance still produces inconsistent interfaces, because the ambiguity was never in the props.
Consumers are downstream teams with their own deadlines, and a breaking change delivered without notice is an outage in their sprint. Publish the changelog entry with a migration note, deprecate before removing, and give people a version boundary they can adopt on their own schedule. A design system that breaks its consumers gets forked.
This board encodes one opinion about how the work should run. Here is where that opinion is wrong and something else fits better.
Honest comparisons, including where the other tool wins. Planoda is pre-launch, so nothing below is a benchmark — it is a description of how each product approaches this job.
Storybook is where the component and its documentation actually live: rendered examples, prop tables, interaction tests and accessibility checks against the real implementation. Documentation generated from the code cannot drift from it, which is the failure mode all hand-written component docs eventually hit.
Where Storybook is better: For the documentation itself, Storybook is better and it is the correct home for it. Docs derived from the implementation stay true; a card that says Documenting is only a claim that somebody wrote something somewhere.
The design half of a system lives in Figma libraries, with variants, published versions and update notifications to consuming files. Its branching and library-publish flow is a genuine review mechanism for design changes, not just a file-sharing arrangement.
Where Figma is better: For versioning and distributing the design side, Figma's library publishing does something no task board can: consumers are notified in the tool where they are working, and can adopt the update deliberately.
Design-system teams inside larger organisations often track this in Jira because their consumers already file requests there, and a component request arriving through the same intake as everything else lowers the barrier to asking. Cross-project linking also makes it easier to show which product teams are blocked on which component.
Where Jira is better: If your consuming teams live in Jira, having requests arrive there means more of them arrive at all. Intake friction is a real problem for design systems, and meeting consumers where they already work matters more than the board's shape.
Ready to spin this up?
Sign-up takes seconds. We build this template's boards, lists, and sample issues in your new workspace, all yours to edit.
FAQ
Design review
A critique-driven review queue with explicit feedback rounds, so design work gets seen before it ships, not after.
View templateAsset pipeline
Production tracking for design assets — request, produce, review, export — so marketing and product always know what's ready.
View templateBrand & creative requests
A single front door for brand and creative work — banners, decks, social, and brand assets — with a brief, review rounds, and a delivered-assets state so requests don't bypass the queue.
View template