This is super cool—love how you’re flipping the AI-assisted creation story to focus on design-first workflows. The frontend-only scope is such a smart constraint, especially for PMs and non-designers trying to validate ideas fast without diving into fullstack territory.

I’ve seen firsthand how hard it can be for non-designers to clearly communicate product ideas, and Magic Patterns seems to lower that barrier in a really meaningful way.

I noticed the GitHub Sync option—curious how teams are using that today. Is it more of a dev handoff (e.g. PR previews) or a starting point for custom builds? Would love to hear how that fits into engineering workflows—especially for folks skipping Figma entirely.

Also really appreciate the collaborative angle. Real-time team prototyping on a canvas feels like the future of internal product reviews.

Rooting for you both—this is such a focused and thoughtful approach to a real gap in the market.

The Github sync is used by solo entrepreneurs or hobbyists to get what they've designed in Magic Patterns into their IDE. 99% of the time that's an AI-IDE, like Cursor. And then from their they might add backend functionality. It's pretty interesting seeing how Cursor is the "next step" after these types of tools for that persona.

On the other hand, for product teams with mature engineering workflows, it usually goes like this: 1. Designers/PM brainstorms an idea in Magic Patterns 2. They get feedback in a design crit or from their users by sharing the Magic Patterns URL. 3. They iterate on it further and then either export it to figma or hand it off to engineering directly. But! engineering won't use the code because we output React + Tailwind CSS, and they are very likely using custom components or have their own nuances.

I do think as the foundational models get better the dev/design handoff will get smoother, but I don't think we are there yet, especially for existing code bases. For new projects, it's a different story and our two-way Github sync plays a role.

> engineering won't use the code because we output React + Tailwind CSS, and they are very likely using custom components or have their own nuances.

That's what I think you could attack - in four ways:

- have a way for designers and developers to iterate components in a component library

- have a way for that component library to be used in app designs

- have a way to upload my component library and use its components in app designs

- eventually maybe extend the above to be able to use multiple component libraries (e.g. for companies with multiple brands)