English versions of selected startit.rs articles. Each section below is one article; the yellow box at the top of every section links to the Serbian original, and the Serbian original links back here.
When Marija Mladenović of Solflare walked us through the way her team designs with AI at one of our AI Hub meetups at the end of April, she closed with a caveat: what was giving her good results right then might not work at all a month later.
Four months on, we invited her back to measure together how much her practice had actually changed.
Asked to sum up the difference in a single sentence, she offered a scale: at one end, a process where everything is done by hand; at the other, one that AI drives. "If we were at 50-60%, we're at 80% now."
And when we asked how much faster the whole cycle is than in April, which was already dramatically faster thanks to AI, her estimate is at least 50%.
We started with the obvious topic: Figma, the main tool for most designers over the past decade or so.
Solflare's design team still keeps its design system, tokens and components in Figma, and that is where both designers and developers review everything before implementation. Marija is still in it every day, but for a different reason.
Not to design, but to keep an overview: to change a piece of copy, to look at a screen when we're checking something.
More to answer questions than to design.
Personally, I don't think Figma should be the source of truth for design.
The source of truth should be what's in the code, and that should then be visualized.
— Marija Mladenović, product designer at Solflare
Figma as a source of truth, she says, is a double-edged sword; her position is that the overview of what actually exists in the code should be generated, not drawn.
The decisive change is that Figma's MCP got a new version. In April, reading a file through MCP was so slow and burned so many tokens that for heuristic evaluation she preferred to send screenshots.
Today the same job, reading screens and pulling images out of the file, takes a few minutes instead of twenty to thirty. So what she used to do through a workaround in April she now does directly in the file.
Figma itself improved in another place too: there is finally a plugin that pushes a prototype from code straight into Figma, a tool she says she had been waiting a year for.
In April, Claude Design had existed for 12 days and came with a tight weekly limit; today it is a fully fledged product, and in her team, she says, it has become a habit. She uses it every day herself and has never once hit the limit.
Claude Design delivers a prototype in a couple of minutes. The time now goes into what surrounds it: writing the brief, laying out the key screens on the canvas the way you would in Figma, iterating through them, and only then developing the chosen part into a prototype.
For a whole feature that is a few hours of work. With an up-to-date design system, the output is "very similar" to their product, "almost identical in some situations".
For a competition inside the product she wanted a level-up animation, a job she would not even have attempted in Figma:
In a couple of iterations it packaged it perfectly, and I passed the file on to the developers.
That's something I wouldn't do in Figma, because I can't achieve it there.
I could, if I spent five days on it, but I don't want to do that to myself or to anyone else.
The furthest reach of automation is around the design system itself. All of it is packaged into a skill: a colleague of hers built it, and the whole team uses it.
You run it once: Claude reads the Figma file, recognizes what has changed in it and opens tasks in ClickUp, with the component version, a list of changes and the people who implement it tagged. That whole step is over in a minute.
And the biggest brake on skipping Figma completely?
Even now I can build everything through AI. It's just that what I get simply isn't consistent enough. That's what stops me from just handing it over to the developers.
She also adds a caveat of her own: she has not yet tested a full process without Figma on real features, so she cannot claim how it would hold up in a team with a complex design system.
She expects, though perhaps not quite by the end of the year, that they will build most things through AI, with the designer defining the product and setting the direction. She sees the process evolving toward a repository (say, GitHub) where design is on an equal footing with code.
Piece by piece, it already exists: a repository can already be imported into Figma and connected to Claude Code, and Storybook through MCP makes components readable for AI.
What is missing is for all of it to work as a single whole: to see visually what has been implemented and, from that, prompt a new page into existence.
At the end of June, Meta open-sourced Astryx, a design system that grew internally for eight years and powers more than 13,000 of Meta's apps, released explicitly as a system that both people and agents can work in. It is no coincidence that it came out in exactly this window.
Figma's plugin that connects Claude Code directly to Figma points the same way.
Her experience, moreover, is not an outlier. According to the State of Prototyping survey that UX Tools ran in spring 2026 on a sample of 1,478 designers, Figma still leads at 82.6%, with Claude right behind at 50.8%.
Of the ten tools designers use most each week, five are AI: Claude, ChatGPT, Claude Code, Figma Make and Gemini.
The AI in Design Report 2026, published in March, so still before our April event, pointed the same way: 91% of designers use AI in design at least weekly, and 75% daily.
AI Hub is supported by
