The mandate: Own the bridge between design and code. Build and maintain the design system, prototype in code, implement UI primitives, and make sure what ships looks exactly like what was designed. The line that defines this req and separates it from every other frontend job: "AI tools are a first-class part of how you work, not a side experiment." Cursor and Claude Code are the starting point for component work, with the candidate's judgment refining the output. They also want this person documenting and sharing AI-native prompts and workflows with the rest of the team. That's not a bonus bullet. It appears in the responsibilities, in the requirements, and in the evaluation criteria — three times. A design engineer who doesn't already work this way will not clear the loop, and recruiters should screen for it on the first call rather than hoping. Also worth flagging in outreach: "You will collaborate closely with our product designer" — singular. One designer, no design org. This person is half the design function. What You'll Own
-
AI-first workflow — Cursor and Claude Code as the starting point for component work
-
The Retell design system — component library, Storybook, design tokens, Figma variables
-
Prototyping in React and TypeScript, tested with real users before systemization
-
Figma-to-production translation at pixel-level accuracy
-
Design-code parity across the core product — dashboard, agent config, CRM views
-
Frontend PR review for visual quality, not just functionality
-
Documenting and sharing AI-native prompts and workflows across design and engineering
-
Evolving the visual language with the product designer Requirements Hard gates:
-
Strong Figma — component library, variables, auto layout. Not "can read a Figma file."
-
Solid frontend — HTML, CSS, React, TypeScript
-
Has built and maintained UI component libraries
-
Design systems knowledge — tokens, spacing, visual consistency at scale
-
Active use of AI coding tools with clear opinions on where they help and where they don't. Stated as a must-have. Stage 3 is a live component build; how they use the tools will be visible.
-
Has shipped real components to production products
-
On-site, Redwood City Profile:
-
4–8 years, senior enough to own a system alone
-
Prototypes in code rather than waiting for pixel-perfect specs
-
"You notice when spacing is off and can't leave it alone"
-
Designers and engineers both want to work with them
-
Comfortable when specs evolve mid-build Strong bonuses:
-
Storybook
-
Motion and interaction design sensibility — rarer than static visual skill and directly useful for agent state and streaming UI
-
Accessibility standards familiarity
-
Design-forward SaaS background — Linear, Vercel, Stripe, Figma, Notion, Retool
-
Interest in mentoring others on AI-native workflows — signals Retell wants this person to change how the whole team works, not just ship components Location and visa:
-
On-site, Redwood City
-
Sponsorship: H-1B, TN, L-1, E-3, F-1 (OPT/CPT), and O-1 How Retell Actually Evaluates (their stated criteria — better than any paraphrase)
-
Whether you've actually owned a design system, not just contributed to one
-
Whether your components are clean, reusable, and visually accurate
-
Whether you use AI tools fluently and can show us how
-
Whether designers and engineers both want to work with you
-
Whether you sweat the details that make products feel polished Anti-patterns
-
Design system contributors rather than owners. Called out explicitly. Most common near-miss.
-
Frontend engineers with no design sensibility — they'll build it functional and slightly wrong
-
Designers who prototype but can't ship production React and TypeScript
-
Anyone skeptical of or unfamiliar with AI coding tools. Stated three separate times; this is not negotiable.
-
Engineers who need finished specs before starting
-
Big-company design engineers who worked inside a mature system with a platform team below them
-
Component builders with no taste — the JD's spacing line is a real filter
-
Remote requirements Who Will Thrive Here
Someone who has owned a design system end to end, has strong opinions about component API design, and can't walk past four pixels of bad spacing. They already live in Cursor or Claude Code and have a considered view on where those tools produce good output and where they produce plausible garbage. They want to define the visual language of a product used by thousands of companies, working alongside one designer with no layers in between.