Create and validate implementable design tokens

Why use this

1. A design team may agree on a visual direction yet produce inconsistent implementations when token names, types and references are unclear. A token file can be structurally tidy while assigning values to the wrong semantic role.

2. This job could translate approved direction into a reviewable token specification and explicit validation plan. Separating structural checks from visual and accessibility review helps developers understand what has been checked and what still needs human judgment.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Organize semantic token roles, reconcile references and identify ambiguous brand choices before export.

Simpler alternative

Use an existing token set when the brand and target implementation already align.

Unsuitable when

The workflow would infer authoritative brand rules or claim accessibility solely from file validation.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Brand direction

   Owner

   Brand owner

   Minimum scope

   Approved colors, typography, spacing and intended contexts

   Quality check

   Separate required rules from creative suggestions

2. Name

   Target specification

   Owner

   Design-system maintainer

   Minimum scope

   Token types, naming rules and export expectations

   Quality check

   Identify consumers and reference conventions

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Review a synthetic token manifest and specification; no CLI installation, validation execution or implementation writes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current CLI versions, token formats, export behavior and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Installing tools, replacing shared tokens, publishing packages or deploying styles requires authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Token-specification candidate with reference map, unresolved choices and proposed structural/contrast checks.

Critical checks

1. Check type consistency and reference resolution; identify intended foreground/background pairs; distinguish planned checks from executed validation.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A token reference resolves to the wrong semantic role

   Why it matters

   Valid structure can still produce incorrect use

   Proposed response

   Review consumer intent and rename or remap deliberately.

2. Signal

   A contrast check omits an actual usage pair

   Why it matters

   The report can miss an important context

   Proposed response

   Inventory real pairings before interpreting accessibility coverage.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define semantic roles and approved review targets.

Ongoing review

1. Designers review visual results and maintainers inspect future validation evidence.

Unknowns

1. Consumer compatibility, accessibility coverage, migration effort and tool costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a token list with a missing reference, mismatched type and unspecified text/background pairing; perform a paper preflight.

Acceptance checks

1. Flag all gaps; calculate no accessibility score; export nothing and claim no implementation readiness.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if brand authority, target format or validation criteria are unresolved.

Limits

1. A token specification cannot establish rendered quality, accessibility compliance or compatibility with every consumer.