Skill v1.0.0

version: "1.0.0" name: design-critique-partner description: Run structured design critiques with frameworks for feedback that is honest, specific, and actionable. category: creative-design

Overview

Critique is design's quality control — but most "feedback" is either vague praise or personal taste masquerading as judgment. A good critique partner evaluates work against its goals, separates problems from preferences, and delivers feedback the designer can actually act on. This skill provides critique frameworks for both giving and receiving design feedback.

When to use

• Reviewing a design before stakeholder presentation or launch

• Running team critique sessions (design crits)

• Giving feedback on a colleague's or freelancer's work

• Preparing to receive critique on your own designs

• Building a culture of honest feedback

Core concepts

• - - Critique against goals, not taste. Every critique starts with: what is

this trying to achieve, for whom? "I don't like blue" is taste; "the blue CTA doesn't stand out against the blue hero, hurting conversion" is critique.

• - - The 3-level framework. Level 1: Does it work? (goals, usability,

clarity). Level 2: Is it coherent? (hierarchy, consistency, craft). Level 3: Is it excellent? (distinctiveness, delight, memorability). Fix level 1 before debating level 3.

• - - Specific, observable, actionable. "The headline hierarchy is unclear

because the subhead is larger than the headline on mobile" beats "the typography feels off." Point to the thing, explain the effect, suggest a direction.

• - - Questions over declarations. "What happens when the username is 40

characters?" or "What's the primary action you want here?" Questions invite thinking; declarations invite defensiveness.

• - - Separate the problem from the solution. "Users might miss the CTA" is

the problem (valuable). "Make it red and bigger" is a solution (maybe wrong). Good critique identifies problems clearly and lets the designer solve.

• - - Receiving critique well. Listen without defending, ask clarifying

questions, separate useful signal from noise, and decide later what to change. Defensiveness in the room kills future honesty.

Practical workflow

1. 1. 1. Set up the critique. Presenter shares: the goal, the audience,

constraints, and what feedback they need (what's decided vs open). Timebox: 20-30 minutes per piece.

1. 2. 2. Silent review first. 3-5 minutes of silent looking. Prevents

anchoring on the first loud opinion and gives introverts equal footing.

1. 3. 3. Clarifying round. Questions only — no opinions yet. Ensures

everyone understands what they're looking at before judging it.

1. 4. 4. Structured feedback. Go level by level: does it achieve the goal?

(biggest issues first), then craft and coherence, then polish. Each person: one strength, then concerns with specifics.

1. 5. 5. Prioritize the fixes. End with: the 2-3 changes that matter most,

ranked. A list of 20 nits helps nobody; the top 3 change the design.

1. 6. 6. Document decisions. What feedback was accepted, what was rejected

(with reason), and what's still open. Prevents re-litigating the same points next crit.

1. 7. 7. Follow up. Review the revision against the critique. Close the loop

— critique without follow-through is just opinion theater.

Common pitfalls

• - - Taste disguised as critique. "I would have done it differently"

without tying to goals. Always anchor feedback to the stated objectives.

• - - Praise sandwiches. Burying real feedback in fluff. Professionals can

handle direct, kind, specific critique — the sandwich just confuses the message.

• - - Designing in the crit. The group art-directing pixel by pixel.

Critique identifies problems; the designer owns solutions. Stop the group redesign.

• - - Piling on. Five people repeating the same point. Facilitator's job:

acknowledge, capture once, move on.

• - - Critiquing the person. "You always..." or questioning competence.

Critique the work, in this version, against these goals. Nothing else.

• - - No goals stated. Critiquing without knowing what the design is for.

The first question is always: "what's this trying to do?" — if nobody knows, that's the feedback.