running-design-reviews（运行设计评审）

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, 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

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 (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 and score with references/RUBRIC.md.
• Always include: Risks, Open questions, Next steps.

Examples

See 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/WORKFLOW.md
• references/TEMPLATES.md
• references/CHECKLISTS.md
• references/RUBRIC.md
• references/SOURCE_SUMMARY.md
• references/EXAMPLES.md