Where pure additive manufacturing (AM) is too costly and conventional machining is too restrictive, a sequential application of machining followed by AM can become a promising alternative. This is particularly attractive if the capabilities of AM are only needed locally, for instance to create features subject to wear, complex freeform surfaces or internal channels, whereas the other geometric features can be realized much easier by conventional means [1]. A well-established strategy is the combination of machining as the first and directed energy deposition (DED) as the second process. For small parts with fine structural details, the application of powder bed fusion (PBF) as the second process, though not yet widely used, has an even greater potential. Parts manufactured by this strategy are certainly monolithic but still hybrid in the sense that they consist of two areas where the material has been created and shaped using a different process, which must be reflected also during the design process. However, such hybrid design strategies must go beyond simply applying known design rules to each of the areas individually. First and foremost, the position and orientation of the interface between the two areas must be selected in such a way that the geometric features and functional surfaces it contains are well suited for manufacturing using the respective process. The transition between the two areas of the part should also be designed carefully. This is not limited to properly sizing the cross-sections where both areas are fused together but also includes how their surfaces blend into one another to avoid stress concentrations. Moreover, a potential misalignment when mounting the machined workpiece into the additive manufacturing machine must be taken into account. In this work we present two industrial cases studies from the field of industrial robots addressing the topology optimization and redesign of end-effectors. The end-effectors are assembled from three components: a support structure, a linear guide and the actual tool. The support structure is bolted to the individual mounting interface of the robot’s arm and is supposed to carry the tool, albeit the latter does not fix directly to the support structure. Instead, a linear guide is provided in between allowing for a motion of the tool relative to the robot that can be driven and controlled by the tool itself. In the first use case, the tool is a gripper for injection molding and in the second us