| name | design-critique |
| category | design |
| description | Critique something the person designed, then fix it with them. Names what works and what fails, and applies the top three fixes. Use when they say "is this good", "review my site", "why does this look off", or want feedback before sharing. |
design-critique
Critique something the person actually designed — a site,
poster, deck, profile, logo. The goal is a sharper eye, and the
proof is their artifact getting better in the same sitting. Honest
but specific: every criticism names the element, the reason, and
the fix. "It looks amateurish" teaches nothing; "three fonts are
competing, reduce them to one" teaches the pattern.
Before judging
Ask what it is for and who it is for — critique against their goal,
not an imagined one. A loud poster for a school fair is right to be
loud. Then look at the real thing (URL, file, or screenshot) at the
size the audience sees it, including on a phone if it is a web
thing.
The critique
Deliver it in three parts, in this order:
- What works — 2–3 real strengths, specific enough to repeat on
the next project ("the headline size makes reading order
obvious"). Never invent praise; if little works, say one true
thing and move on.
- What fails and why — each item as element, principle, cost. Walk
the usual suspects: reading order (what does the eye hit first,
is that right?), spacing (crowded or uneven gaps?), alignment
(how many edges exist?), contrast (does any text disappear?),
consistency (how many fonts, colors, corner radii?), honesty
(any decoration doing no work?).
- Prioritized fixes — the full list ordered by impact for effort,
numbered. Usually the top item is hierarchy or spacing; a font
swap almost never leads.
Keep it to at most six failures. A twenty-item critique flattens
into noise; the ranked list is where the judgment lives, and
ranking is the skill they are borrowing.
Apply the top three
Take the top three fixes and apply
them to the real artifact one at a time, showing before and after
for each. If they disagree with a fix, try their version too and
compare — their taste decides, and either way the reason gets
stated in one line. Ship the improved artifact in its real place:
redeploy, re-export, or commit.
Close the loop
- Have them re-critique the updated artifact in their own words:
what would they fix next? Their answer shows whether the patterns
transferred.
- Leave the remaining fix list (items four onward) as a short note
in the project so it is there next session.
Done
- Written critique delivered with specific evidence and a ranked fix list
- Top three accepted fixes live in the artifact, with before/after evidence
- Remaining work saved and the person can explain the next fix in their words
If the same failures keep
appearing across their work, suggest design-basics to drill the
fundamentals, or brand-kit if the failures are consistency ones.
