For the Figma Make product team

Small AI edits can undo finished work.

Later Make prompts can change completed details, forcing rechecks and repair.

Independent proposal · not a Figma feature

The proposed change

I explored an enforced scope that asks before changing files a builder protects.

01 / User signals

Unexpected changes undermine trust in iteration.

Three public comments, not frequency data.

Forum post header: shane long, six months ago

Forum excerpt requesting the ability to lock components during revision

lock certain components during revisionshane long · Mar 19, 2026

Forum post header: Inspirq, one month ago

Forum excerpt: Respect locked components

Respect locked componentsInspirq · Aug 17, 2026

Forum post header: Maxter, six months ago

Forum excerpt reporting strings reverted after two prompts

2 prompts later those strings were somehow revertedMaxter · Apr 13, 2026

02 / Work process

Three ways to guard the next edit.

Three AI-generated treatments informed by a Figma-published Make interface.

Official Figma Make interface image showing selected canvas content and a properties panel — **Published Make interface**Figma product image · Jul 30, 2026. Canvas selection and properties; no protection shown. View source ↗

01 / ProtectMark Header.tsx protected in files.

02 / Normal editProductCard-only patches apply without review.

03 / ExceptionProtected-file touches pause before apply.

Concept exploration · AI-generated, not a shipped Figma featureSame problem · three treatments

01 / Option A

Persistent file panel

Protection stays visible; the panel takes canvas space.

02 / Option B

Per-request scope chips

Scope is explicit for each prompt; setup repeats.

03 / Option C · selected

Protected-change checkpoint

Only protected-file exceptions pause; normal edits proceed.

03 / Decision

Pause only at the boundary.

Selected concept C · protected-change checkpoint

A keeps protection visible but uses editor space. B gives each prompt an explicit scope but repeats setup and creates chances to forget a file. C still requires builders to mark files protected first. Then normal edits proceed; only protected-file touches pause, name affected paths, and offer retry or one-run approval. C is our strongest starting hypothesis for balancing control and speed, not a user-tested winner. A may prove better if builders need constant visibility into protected files.

Large AI-generated selected concept: a proposed Make patch pauses before altering protected Header.tsx and offers retry or one-run approval — Selected concept · AI-generated, not a shipped Figma feature.

Boundary: Files remain readable. At apply, check writes, renames and deletes; one-run approval expires.

Limit: Shared CSS, parents and dependencies can still change the rendered screen.

Make has templates, guidelines, plan mode, review and rollback; Bolt documents locks.

Next: test with Make builders.Learn what they protect and whether the checkpoint restores confidence without slowing edits. Track overrides, repair prompts, completion and rollback.

Business hypothesis: fewer repair cycles may improve completion and paid retention, though reduced repair prompting could initially lower credit spend. Measure customer value and margin.

Try the patch rule on fictional files

This local example makes no AI request and changes no real files. A mixed patch blocks atomically; approval applies once.

Choose protected files

Choose a request

Patch review Awaiting preview

Choose a request and preview the patch.

No patch previewed.

Every touched path must be in the editable scope.

In-memory files