WorkBuddy Turns Prototype Tool Migration Checks into an Actionable Checklist

At the review meeting, someone asked what to do if old prototype files can't be opened in the future. It's hard to answer this off the cuff. I first took stock of the tool status and found that service shutdown notices, export formats, owners, and deadlines were scattered across emails, WeCom (Enterprise WeChat), and meeting minutes. I came across a 2026 article on selecting prototyping tools, mentioning that MockingBot, Axure RP, and Figma can still be chosen based on scenarios, but tools like InVision and Atomic have already shut down, with official maintenance ended or services closed. New projects shouldn't just look at fame. I've been using WorkBuddy for about a month, and its automatic weekly reports have run for four weeks, so it was perfect for doing a migration check.

With WorkBuddy, you can't just throw in a line saying "help me evaluate." You need to give it a runnable structure first. Create a new project; you can name it "Prototype Tool Migration Check." Don't panic if you're a first-time user; look for Import Files or Upload Materials in the interface and put in three types of things: a list of prototype tools, a project PRD (requirements document), and a Tencent Meeting transcript (text converted from meeting audio). The tool list can be copied from that 2026 selection article table. For the PRD, I tried exporting from WeCom documents over the last few days—click Export as Word or Markdown in the top right corner. For the transcript, just copy the full text. Don't upload too many files; keep it under ten initially, otherwise it gets messy.

After importing, don't directly ask it to evaluate. I tried asking directly, and WorkBuddy missed fields and misjudged statuses. So here, you need to fix the fields first, including: Tool Name, 2026 Status, Whether Service is Shut Down, Exportable Formats, Number of Historical Projects, Dependent Capabilities, Owner, and Check Deadline. Have WorkBuddy extract data according to these eight fields, marking uncertain ones as "To Be Confirmed." Once the fields are fixed, subsequent discussions won't be disjointed. The more scattered the materials, the more you need to organize them into reviewable columns first; otherwise, AI will just guess along with the question.

The most critical part of configuration is the rules. If the status is "Operations Stopped" or "Core Collaboration Service Stopped," I have it mark it as High Risk immediately; "Maintenance Phase" is marked Medium Risk; "Continuously Available" requires scenario analysis. For complex backends, conditional logic, or projects with many variable states, I write a rule to prioritize retaining tools with strong logic expression like Axure RP, rather than rushing to migrate to lightweight click-through prototypes. For Chinese teams relying mainly on linking requirements, reviews, and delivery, MockingBot can be prioritized for evaluation, but the prerequisite is checking if historical files can be exported. Figma is better suited for design system collaboration, Bubble leans towards runnable MVPs (Minimum Viable Products) and cannot replace complex interaction rules. This judgment might not apply to everyone, but in my experience, it's more reliable than simply asking which tool is good.

Permissions also need to be set up in advance. In the WorkBuddy project, I enabled Editor and Read-only Commenter. Product managers can modify fields, developers have read-only access and can comment, designers supplement component dependencies, and project managers adjust deadlines. Prototype tool migration is the same; the biggest fear is ten people changing the same row simultaneously, ending up with no owner. So I require each person to only change the fields they are responsible for, and suggest changes to other content via comments. WorkBuddy aggregates these, and I merge them.

Daily operations aren't actually complicated. Every Friday, WorkBuddy's automatic weekly report summarizes new shutdown notices, fields to be confirmed, and high-risk tool lists. Every morning, I click Check for Updates once to let it scan imported files for any new statuses. My environment might not be universal, but if your team edits PRDs in WeCom documents every week, it's best to fix a directory name. Don't call it "Prototype" one day, "Requirements" another, and "Demo" later. WorkBuddy recognizes directories much faster when names are consistent.

The result is that what used to take three days of scattering information, I can now produce a reviewable checklist in about two hours. Don't aim for perfection in the first version; just get it running. Later, I added a pitfall avoidance tip: don't let it merge twenty tool profiles at once. I tried it once and missed the owners for two old projects. The workaround is to extract each type of material separately, then merge them into a master table.

Once the checklist is out, you can bring it directly into the review to see which tools can still export, which need manual confirmation, and which projects need early archiving. Information scattered in documents, meeting minutes, and announcements finally becomes a checklist where items can be ticked off.