--- name: "running-design-reviews" description: "Run high-signal design reviews: brief, feedback log, decision record, follow-up plan." --- # Running Design Reviews ## Scope **Covers** - Planning a design review with a clear decision and requested feedback type(s) - Running a live demo–centered critique (or async review when needed) - Capturing feedback without “design-by-committee” - Synthesizing feedback using **Value → Ease of Use → Delight** prioritization - Recording decisions, tradeoffs, and follow-ups so the review changes the work **When to use** - “Prepare and run a design critique for this Figma prototype.” - “We need a structured design review agenda and feedback log.” - “Help us review this flow and decide what to change before we ship.” - “Turn messy comments into prioritized feedback + next steps.” **When NOT to use** - You don’t have a defined problem, target user, or goal yet (use `problem-definition` first). - You need build-ready interaction specs / acceptance criteria (use `writing-specs-designs`). - You need evidence from users rather than expert critique -> use `usability-testing`. - You’re doing launch planning, comms, rollout/rollback (use `shipping-products`). - You need a general meeting facilitation framework, not a design-specific critique -> use `running-effective-meetings`. - You need to establish or audit design system components/tokens -> use `design-systems`. - You need to improve the design-to-engineering handoff process -> use `design-engineering`. ## Inputs **Minimum required** - Design artifact(s): link(s) or screenshots (e.g., Figma/prototype) + what parts are in scope - The decision needed (what will change after the review) - Target user + job-to-be-done (1–2 sentences) - Success criteria (1–3) and constraints (time, platform, accessibility, tech) - Review format + logistics: live vs async, time box, attendees/roles **Missing-info strategy** - Ask up to **5** questions from [references/INTAKE.md](references/INTAKE.md), then proceed. - If answers aren’t available, make explicit assumptions and clearly label them. - Do not request secrets or credentials. ## Outputs (deliverables) Produce a **Design Review Pack** in Markdown (in-chat by default; write to files if requested), in this order: 1) **Design review brief / pre-read** (context, decision, requested feedback, links) 2) **Agenda + facilitation script** (timed, prompts, roles) 3) **Feedback log** (captured + categorized + prioritized) 4) **Decision record** (decisions, tradeoffs, owners, due dates) 5) **Follow-up message + next review plan** (what changed, what’s next) 6) **Risks / Open questions / Next steps** (always included) Templates: [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md) ## Workflow (7 steps) ### 1) Classify the review and lock the decision - **Inputs:** Request + artifact(s) + constraints. - **Actions:** Identify the review type (concept / flow / content / visual polish / ship-readiness). Write the decision statement (“After this review we will decide ___”). - **Outputs:** Review type + decision statement + scope boundary (in/out). - **Checks:** Everyone can answer: “What will change after this review?” ### 2) Set the requested feedback (and what NOT to comment on) - **Inputs:** Decision statement + stage of design. - **Actions:** Specify 1–3 feedback questions (e.g., “Is the value proposition clear?”, “Where does the flow break?”, “What edge cases are missing?”). Explicitly defer aesthetics/minutiae until Value/Ease are validated. - **Outputs:** Requested feedback list + “out of scope” feedback. - **Checks:** Feedback questions map directly to the decision. ### 3) Assign roles (incl. a sponsor) and prepare a live demo - **Inputs:** Attendees list + timeline/risk. - **Actions:** Assign: **Presenter**, **Facilitator**, **Note-taker**, and a **Sponsor/DRI** (senior owner who focuses on “why” + core concept). Decide whether leadership must review all user-facing screens before ship (for high-craft products). - **Outputs:** Roles list + demo plan (what will be shown, in what order). - **Checks:** Decision rights are clear; the review is anchored in a live demo, not a slide deck. ### 4) Produce the pre-read (context first, then artifacts) - **Inputs:** [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md) (brief template) + project context. - **Actions:** Write a 1–2 page brief: problem → user → success criteria → constraints → options considered → risks/tradeoffs → open questions → links. - **Outputs:** Shareable pre-read + “how to review” instructions. - **Checks:** A reviewer can give useful feedback asynchronously without a live context dump. ### 5) Run the review (big picture → Value → Ease → Delight) - **Inputs:** Agenda + demo + notes/feedback log. - **Actions:** Start with goals/feelings (“What’s bothering us overall?”), then evaluate: 1) **Value:** is it solving the right problem? 2) **Ease:** can users do it without friction? 3) **Delight:** polish, aesthetics, extra joy (only after 1–2) Capture feedback as **observations + impact + suggestion**, not opinions. - **Outputs:** Filled feedback log with categories and severities. - **Checks:** The review does not get stuck in minutiae before Value/Ease are resolved. ### 6) Synthesize + prioritize feedback into a change plan - **Inputs:** Feedback log. - **Actions:** Deduplicate comments; resolve conflicts by returning to goals and constraints; prioritize by user impact and risk. Convert top items into explicit changes with owners and due dates. - **Outputs:** Prioritized change list + updated feedback log status/owners. - **Checks:** Top 3 issues are clear; each has a proposed action and owner. ### 7) Decide, document tradeoffs, and close the loop - **Inputs:** Proposed change plan + remaining open questions. - **Actions:** Record decisions and rationale; list tradeoffs and risks; define what must be re-reviewed. Send a follow-up summary and schedule the next review or ship gate. - **Outputs:** Decision record + follow-up message + Risks/Open questions/Next steps. - **Checks:** Decisions and action items are captured in writing; no critical decision is left implicit. ## Quality gate (required) - Use [references/CHECKLISTS.md](references/CHECKLISTS.md) and score with [references/RUBRIC.md](references/RUBRIC.md). - Always include: **Risks**, **Open questions**, **Next steps**. ## Examples See [references/EXAMPLES.md](references/EXAMPLES.md). **Boundary example (redirect):** "We want to test this prototype with 5 users and see where they get stuck." Response: redirect to `usability-testing` -- this request needs user evidence from real participants, not expert critique in a design review. ## Anti-patterns Avoid these common failure modes when running design reviews: 1. **Design-by-committee** -- Treating every reviewer comment as a requirement. The facilitator must synthesize feedback through the Value > Ease > Delight hierarchy and let the DRI make final calls. 2. **Minutiae-first critique** -- Spending the review debating icon styles, colors, or copy polish before validating that the design solves the right problem (Value) and is usable (Ease). Always enforce the hierarchy. 3. **Missing decision statement** -- Running a review without stating what will change afterward. "Get feedback" is not a decision. Every review must start with "After this review we will decide ___." 4. **No pre-read, all context dump** -- Spending the first 15 minutes of a 30-minute review explaining context. Send a pre-read brief so reviewers arrive prepared and time is spent on critique. 5. **Feedback without follow-through** -- Capturing feedback in a log but never converting it to action items with owners and due dates. The review is incomplete until a decision record and follow-up plan exist. ## Reference files - [references/INTAKE.md](references/INTAKE.md) - [references/WORKFLOW.md](references/WORKFLOW.md) - [references/TEMPLATES.md](references/TEMPLATES.md) - [references/CHECKLISTS.md](references/CHECKLISTS.md) - [references/RUBRIC.md](references/RUBRIC.md) - [references/SOURCE_SUMMARY.md](references/SOURCE_SUMMARY.md) - [references/EXAMPLES.md](references/EXAMPLES.md)