Developer settings are full of short labels with expensive consequences. “Regenerate,” “Rotate,” “Revoke,” and “Delete” may look interchangeable in a compact Figma panel, but they can invalidate production credentials, interrupt integrations, or expose a secret that cannot be shown again.
CopyDoc can export Figma text for structured review, help teams find repeated terminology, and sync approved copy back into designs. The audit still needs security, product, support, and developer input because wording must match real system behaviour.
Map the objects and their lifecycles
Inventory every object the interface manages: API keys, personal access tokens, OAuth clients, webhook secrets, signing keys, service accounts, test credentials, and environment variables. For each one, document:
- who can create, view, rotate, revoke, or delete it;
- whether the secret is displayed once or can be recovered;
- production, sandbox, or environment scope;
- permission scopes;
- expiry behaviour;
- last-used and created metadata;
- downstream effect of a destructive action;
- supported recovery path.
Do not audit button labels in isolation. “Delete key” may remove a record; “revoke token” may invalidate access immediately; “rotate secret” may create an overlap period. The UI copy must describe the implemented lifecycle.
This differs from a general permission and role copy audit. Roles explain who has authority across a product; developer-setting copy also explains credential scope, secret handling, integration impact, and technical recovery.
Establish a terminology table
Export the relevant text layers with CopyDoc and group strings by object and action. Create approved definitions for terms such as key, token, secret, client ID, scope, endpoint, signing, rotate, revoke, expire, and delete.
Check product UI, documentation, CLI output, API responses, support macros, and audit logs. If the interface says “API secret” while the docs say “access token,” users may paste the wrong value or search for help under the wrong name.
Prefer labels that name both the action and object: “Revoke access token” is safer than “Disable.” Avoid borrowing a familiar term if the implementation behaves differently. A rotation flow that immediately invalidates the old secret should not imply a graceful overlap.
Review the creation and reveal states
The first reveal is often the only chance to copy a secret. The page should state that before creation, repeat it beside the revealed value, and confirm where the credential belongs. Include a clear copy action and feedback that does not expose the value in logs or analytics.
Test these states in Figma:
- permission denied;
- successful creation and one-time reveal;
- copy success and copy failure;
- page refresh after the reveal is gone;
- invalid or duplicate name;
- maximum key limit;
- expired credential;
- empty list for a new account.
Never use realistic live secrets in mockups, screenshots, or spreadsheet exports. Use conspicuously fake fixtures that cannot be mistaken for working credentials.
Make destructive consequences concrete
Confirmation copy should answer what stops working, when it stops, and whether the action can be undone. Compare:
Revoke token?
with:
Revoke the production token used by “Billing sync”? Requests using this token will fail immediately. This cannot be undone.
The second version gives the user an object, environment, integration, timing, and recovery implication. If the system knows last use or affected webhook, include that context carefully. Do not claim that “nothing will break” simply because recent usage is absent.
For rotation, describe the order of operations. If both credentials remain valid temporarily, show the deadline. If the old value expires immediately, warn users to update the integration first. Copy cannot repair a dangerous lifecycle, so raise product issues when the safe sequence is impossible.
Audit errors as recovery instructions
Group errors by cause: authentication, permission, scope, expiry, malformed value, rate limit, network, endpoint validation, or provider response. A useful error says what failed, what remains unchanged, and the next safe action.
Avoid exposing raw secrets, stack traces, internal hostnames, or sensitive request bodies. Provide a request or event ID when support can use it. The error-message and empty-state review workflow provides a broader error taxonomy; this review adds credential-specific security and revocation risks.
Re-import approved copy and test it in context
Keep stable string IDs and status fields in the review sheet. After security and product owners approve the wording, import the text with CopyDoc and inspect every affected frame. Confirm that longer warnings do not disappear behind truncation, dialogs remain readable on small screens, code values wrap or scroll safely, and button hierarchy matches the consequence.
Before signoff, verify:
- one term per credential type;
- environment and scope are visible;
- one-time reveal limitations are explicit;
- destructive actions name the effect and timing;
- recovery steps match the real system;
- fake fixtures contain no valid secrets;
- docs and support language use the same terms;
- localisation has room for longer technical copy.
CopyDoc makes a cross-file language audit and controlled re-import practical. It cannot determine whether rotation is safe or whether a scope grants the intended access. The strongest workflow treats copy as part of the credential model—and refuses to make ambiguous system behaviour sound harmless.
Read as Markdown Related resource index Site index for AI agents
Pro Bundle