44-Page Dental Template Customisation

Client (end user): Irmo Dentistry — a US dental practice in Irmo, SC
Engagement: White-label template customisation for a US marketing agency
Delivered: September 2025 · 40 days · 22 hours · 44 URLs · on schedule

The Craft of Template Customisation

44 pages of a dental practice mapped onto a 10-template Figma system — 25 service pages, a services lander, a doctor bio, and a Smile Gallery held back until content was ready, all inside a 22-hour estimate. The agency delivered the Figma as contract; we owned the per-page execution and the QA: 125 tracked SEO and CX items reconciled across the workbook before the agency signed off on cutover.

The value is speed with consistency — but only if the customisation is disciplined. A dev team that “interprets” the Figma, skips QA rounds, or deviates from the template’s design system is worse than starting from scratch.

This case study is a record of a lean-hour template customisation where an established dental practice’s full URL surface was migrated to the agency’s branded template system — 44 pages mapped, 10 templates applied, and 290+ QA items reconciled inside a 22-hour estimate.

Snapshot

The Brief

A US marketing agency delivered us a Figma design for Irmo Dentistry and a deployment target on their branded Kinsta-hosted template system. The agency had already done the upstream work: design audit, client approval, hosting setup, content plan. What they needed was a development team that would map the Figma onto the template faithfully, through however many customisation iterations the design required.

The ask was operational. Take the Figma as the source of truth. Customise the template to match it page by page, breakpoint by breakpoint. Raise QA findings back to the agency in the shared workspace; don’t close them without agency sign-off.

What the agency needed to guard against was a dev shop that would treat a 44-page migration as a bulk-copy exercise. The practice already had a live website with an established patient-facing URL surface; moving it to the agency’s branded template system meant preserving every URL, hiding incomplete pages, and sustaining QA discipline across 290+ tracked items — all inside a 22-hour budget.

How We Did It

1. Figma-as-contract, template-as-canvas. The Figma file was the design spec. The branded template was the underlying page structure. Our job was to reconcile the two page by page — where the template’s default layout matched the Figma, we kept it; where the Figma required a deviation, we customised. No design decisions originated on our side. We chose template-defaults-first over page-by-page bespoke build because the 22-hour budget did not allow custom design on every URL — customisation was reserved for pages where the Figma explicitly diverged from the template structure.

2. QA cycle at template-customisation scale. A clean template customisation is not “build once, review once”. It is “build, QA, adjust, QA, adjust”. The agency tracked 290+ items across two issue-backlog tabs (105 SEO findings and 186 CX findings), of which the majority were reconciled through the shared fix loop before handoff. This volume is not a sign of instability; it is the discipline that separates a templated site that looks “roughly right” from one that matches the design.

The principle behind this is simple: on a templated build, the QA loop is where the value is delivered. A shorter QA cycle is a weaker match to the design, not a faster delivery.

3. Customisation without drift. Over the course of the project, every change we made to the branded template — whether to a page layout, a section component, or a style token — was documented against the Figma reference. No customisation “leaked” into the template’s shared components, which means this project’s work did not degrade the template for the next site it would serve.

4. Cross-device verification. Customisations were QA’d against Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge on desktop, tablet, and mobile viewports — the standard agency breakpoint set. Each QA round covered the pages affected by the round’s design deltas, not the whole site, which is how a templated build stays efficient without losing coverage.

44 URLs across 40 days, with the agency asking the team to move at real-time priority from day 8 onward. Staying inside the 22-hour estimate meant applying template defaults wherever the Figma did not explicitly require a deviation — customisation effort was reserved for the pages where the design diverged, not distributed evenly. That ordering is what kept the QA loop at 3 rounds rather than the usual 15.

Operational Integrity at handoff

Internal QA during the build caught two issues before staging handoff: URL-structure inconsistency (half the sitemap URLs were missing trailing slashes — flagged in chat, «Со слешем все делаем» was the call, and the full 44-URL surface was corrected) and a content-language error on the doctor bio page (wrong pronouns from the template placeholder, caught via CX backlog row 83 and fixed pre-handoff). Pre-handoff QA ran through Site Checker — see our QA discipline for the categories and the fail-zero gate. The agency’s own QA layer — their tools, their process — ran post-handoff and surfaced issues into the shared backlog for our fix loop until they signed off.

Customisations stayed in the per-client overrides; the agency’s shared template components were not modified.

Results

The outcome, restated plainly: the agency’s Figma was implemented against their branded template across 44 pages and 10 templates, over 40 calendar days, inside the 22-hour estimate.

Process

Development and QA ran concurrently — this is characteristic of template-customisation work, where no “QA phase” closes cleanly; the loop runs continuously until the agency signs off.

Team

Delivery team

• Nikita Tumasevic — lead developer (template customisation and Figma-to-layout mapping)
• Pavel Sazhin — QA iterations and backlog reconciliation
• Anna Polunina — developer support on customisation rounds
• Anton Hersun, xaverPRO — project lead (estimation, agency-side communication, sign-off)

Agency-side project management, design, and client communication remained with the partner agency throughout. Our team was invisible to the end client. All customisation requests came through the agency’s shared issue backlog; nothing about the build was visible to the end client directly. Each QA round was closed only after the agency-side reviewer confirmed the delta was resolved.

For agencies with a branded template system