Framework: Don't design for the product you wish existed
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Assessment
- Difficulty
- 2/5
- Estimated time
- 1-3 hours
- Newbie friendliness
- 78/100
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Clarity
- Clearly specified
- Activity status
- Quiet
- Domain
- ai, documentation
Research direction
Start by reviewing the suggested locations, frameworks/ai-era-practices/design-for-shipped-capability.md and frameworks/execution/. Add the framework sections for symptoms, causes, the real-data-only prompt, the review checklist, and preserving future vision work. Done means the guidance clearly distinguishes shipped capabilities from roadmap ideas and includes the Balance case study.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Description
Summary
Add a framework about the recurring anti-pattern where AI design tools (Claude Design, v0, etc.) produce mockups that imply capabilities the backend doesn't have. The fix is an explicit "real data only" directive at the start of each design round + a verification step when reviewing results.
The problem
AI design tools fill gaps to make things feel complete. A mockup showing "Gig Detail" will invent:
- Shift schedules ("Thu / Fri / Sat nights") — if your data doesn't track schedules
- Per-shift predictions ("Next shift: Tonight 5–11pm, est $400") — if you only have aggregated paydays
- Collision detection ("Rent hits before your deposit clears") — if you don't have expense tracking
- Actionable features ("Move rent to May 2") — if you can't reschedule expenses
All fabricated. All would need months of backend work to ship. None flagged in the design.
Proposed content
- Symptoms — what fabricated-data mockups look like
- Why it happens — LLMs complete patterns; designs feel "finished" only when fields are full
- The prompt template that prevents it — explicit "real data only" directive with a list of "intentionally NOT present" items
- The review-checklist that catches it post-hoc — per-field audit: does this capability exist today, or is it roadmap?
- How to preserve the aspirational work — don't throw it away; move to a clearly-labeled "Future vision" track for fundraising/roadmap conversations
Case study
Balance's three Claude Design rounds in April 2026 all kept producing fabricated schedules, collision detection, and shift-availability APIs until an explicit "real data only" directive was added to round 4's prompt. Round 4's output included an explicit code comment: "Intentionally NOT present: per-shift predictions, gig schedules, rent, recurring expenses, collision detection, shift-pickup APIs. Those are roadmap."
Suggested location
frameworks/ai-era-practices/design-for-shipped-capability.md or frameworks/execution/
Source
Balance design review rounds, 2026-04-19
- Dominant language
- Shell
- Stars
- 4
- Forks
- 2
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
More from breethomas/bette
-
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 84/100
breethomas/bette#4 ·
-
Difficulty 1/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 85/100
breethomas/bette#2 ·
All issues in breethomas/bette
Similar issues
-
docs(agents): strengthen the no-backslash-escaped-backticks rule with an issue-creation example Open
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 92/100
-
package-update
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 76/100
oSoWoSo/vOid_Community_repOsitory#148 · 1 comment ·
-
chore
Difficulty 1/5 Under an hour Newbie friendliness 91/100
alunduil/alunduil-chezmoi#792 ·
-
area: compat bug
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 72/100
-
zenhub-dev
Difficulty 2/5 1-3 hours Newbie friendliness 68/100
OpenLiberty/ci.docker#747 ·