What you can buy, and what it costs.

Work with them. I build the front-end of the thing I designed, so your engineers get something running they can read and extend.

They still own the architecture, the data layer, and the decision about what ships. What changes is that the design arrives already resolved, so the ambiguity gets settled by me rather than in their sprint.

Whichever you need, and both is common. If your team is going to build it, you get a Figma library with tokens, components and every state drawn. If you would rather skip the translation step, you get a running React front end with the same system underneath, plus the Figma file that matches it rather than drifting from it.

On the code: usually I work in a separate repository and hand it over, because most teams would rather review a whole thing than a stream of commits from an outsider. If you would rather I worked in a branch on your repo, that works too. Either way you decide before we start.

Three things: how many screens are in scope, how much you have already decided, and whether you want the Figma, the code, or both. The audit is the exception. It is $500 whatever the screen is, because the scope is one screen and five days either way.

Figma alone and code alone cost the same. I design by building, so the decisions are identical and only the artifact you keep changes. Taking both is an increment rather than double, because the second one is a library built on the same shared colours, type and spacing, not a second project.

What does not move it is how the project goes. The number is agreed in writing before anything starts and it is the number on the final invoice. Anything outside that scope gets its own price and its own date, agreed before I begin.

It helps. It tells me what you have already decided and what you have already argued about, which saves a week.

I will tell you honestly if the file is worth building on or worth restarting. That answer arrives in the first week, before you have spent much.

Both, sized to the engagement. On an audit the research is your product, your support tickets and heuristic review, because five days does not buy participant recruitment.

On a longer project I test with real users where they exist. Bullpen was tested with 15 active sales reps before launch and scored 85 out of 100 on the standard ease-of-use test (SUS), an A+. I will say plainly when a claim is untested rather than dress up an opinion as a finding.

I am on IST, which overlaps European mornings and US evenings comfortably.

In practice we book one call a week at a time that suits you, and everything else runs async. Both of my recent client engagements ran entirely across timezones.

New work after handover is either a small fixed quote or a month on retainer, whichever is cheaper for you.

Either way you get the price and the date before anything starts, the same as the original engagement.

Logos, brand identity, illustration, marketing sites and pitch decks. I know good people for the first three.

I also do not take on work where the design has already been decided and the job is to draw it. That work is real, and I am the wrong person for it.

Book a 20-minute call. You describe what is broken, I tell you whether I am the right person, and if I am you get a scope and a price within two days.

If you would rather test the water first, buy the audit. It is five days and a fixed fee, and it tells you how I think before you commit to anything larger.