Design Critique Facilitator / Action kit
Design critique agenda & feedback template
Run a critique that produces specific observations and relevant questions instead of vague reactions.
Made for small creative teams reviewing work.
Price and availability
Catalog price: $9 USD
One-time purchase · No subscription
- FilesZIP with five editable Markdown documents, an offline HTML workbook, a reading edition. A five-document worked case follows one fictional project.
- To useExtract the ZIP. Open the workbook in a current desktop browser; edit Markdown in a text editor. No account needed for the workbook or Markdown files.
- LicenseUse for your own or client work; do not redistribute the original templates or tools. Full terms.
- SupportProduct questions and corrections by email; no custom implementation or professional review. 14-day refund policy.
Checking the live price and secure checkout…
The task
What you'll make
A prioritized revision plan linked to the brief and design stage.
Gather before you start
- Current brief
- Work stage
- Requested feedback
Mark missing information so you can check it before using your work.
When to skip this kit
- You need a native Excel, Canva, or Word template. This download contains Markdown documents and an offline HTML workbook.
- You need autosave or cloud sync. Export Markdown or save a backup before closing the offline workbook.
- You need someone to complete the work. These are worksheets to fill in yourself.
Read the first worksheet below to see whether its questions help with your task.
Included files
What's inside
- 01Critique frame
- 02Silent review
- 03Evidence comments
- 04Discussion sorting
- 05Next iteration
Each document has instructions, questions, and space for your answers. The final document includes a common mistake to check for before using your work.
The worked case contains five completed documents, one for each worksheet. Follow the evidence, decisions, and corrections across the same fictional project. The case is included in the workbook, reading edition, Markdown example.
The HTML workbook and reading edition include two original before/after critique layout studies with the same event copy. The Markdown case supplies text equivalents. These are teaching artifacts, not finished brochure files or print proofs.
Your completion check
Preserve independent notes and their source IDs, separate issues, questions, preferences, and new scope, inspect the versioned next iteration, and keep factual and physical-output gates open until checked.
Before you finish
Check this before you use it
Early structural critique turns into final-copy polishing.
Restate the review stage and park comments that cannot help this iteration.
Use the final worksheet to record what needs fixing and what you still need to check.
Free worksheet
Start with worksheet one
Critique frame
Jump to a section
{{project}} / facilitator {{business}} / designer [ ] / decision owner {{contact}} / review {{deadline}}
Purpose: agree what this conversation should improve before asking for feedback. Artifact: exact filename/URL/version [ ]; stage [exploration / rough layout / working prototype / pre-release]; source brief [ ]; audience/task [ ]; evidence behind that task [ ]; known unknowns [ ]. State whether content and observations are real, redacted, or fictional. Requested feedback: criterion | location/use condition | decision it can influence. For early hierarchy review, distinguish identifying the main message and following a sequence from final copy approval, color proof, or a complete accessibility check. Out of scope: [ ]; where those requests go [ ]; authority for scope changes [ ]. A critique does not automatically approve manufacture, publication, or additional paid work. Roles: facilitator | presenter/designer | independent reviewers and relevant perspective | recorder | approver. Identify missing perspectives. Agree whether notes can be shared and keep private customer information out of the shared artifact. Time plan: start/end [ ]; frame [minutes]; quiet inspection [ ]; observation sharing [ ]; questions/sorting [ ]; next iteration [ ]; recap [ ]. Check that the allocations fit the available time and protect the closing decision. Opening draft: “We are reviewing [version] for [task]. Please record what you can point to, the possible reader effect, and your question. We are not deciding [out-of-scope item] today. A proposed solution stays a suggestion until the underlying issue is understood.” Reference: NN/g's Design Critiques article discusses scope and objectives: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-critiques/, checked 2 October 2026. This worksheet and its fictional case are independently authored, not the article's reproduced checklist. Ready when reviewers can access the same version, know the task and limits, and understand who decides the next step.
Your decision
Which decisions are open at this stage? My answer: [ ] Source and date: [ ] Still to check: [ ] Next action, owner, and due date: [ ]
Before you start
- Current brief: [Source or notes]
- Work stage: [Source or notes]
- Requested feedback: [Source or notes]
What you will make
A prioritized revision plan linked to the brief and design stage.
View plain worksheet text
{{project}} / facilitator {{business}} / designer [ ] / decision owner {{contact}} / review {{deadline}}
Purpose: agree what this conversation should improve before asking for feedback.
Artifact: exact filename/URL/version [ ]; stage [exploration / rough layout / working prototype / pre-release]; source brief [ ]; audience/task [ ]; evidence behind that task [ ]; known unknowns [ ]. State whether content and observations are real, redacted, or fictional.
Requested feedback: criterion | location/use condition | decision it can influence. For early hierarchy review, distinguish identifying the main message and following a sequence from final copy approval, color proof, or a complete accessibility check.
Out of scope: [ ]; where those requests go [ ]; authority for scope changes [ ]. A critique does not automatically approve manufacture, publication, or additional paid work.
Roles: facilitator | presenter/designer | independent reviewers and relevant perspective | recorder | approver. Identify missing perspectives. Agree whether notes can be shared and keep private customer information out of the shared artifact.
Time plan: start/end [ ]; frame [minutes]; quiet inspection [ ]; observation sharing [ ]; questions/sorting [ ]; next iteration [ ]; recap [ ]. Check that the allocations fit the available time and protect the closing decision.
Opening draft: “We are reviewing [version] for [task]. Please record what you can point to, the possible reader effect, and your question. We are not deciding [out-of-scope item] today. A proposed solution stays a suggestion until the underlying issue is understood.”
Reference: NN/g's Design Critiques article discusses scope and objectives: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/design-critiques/, checked 2 October 2026. This worksheet and its fictional case are independently authored, not the article's reproduced checklist.
Ready when reviewers can access the same version, know the task and limits, and understand who decides the next step.
Your decision
Which decisions are open at this stage?
My answer: [ ]
Source and date: [ ]
Still to check: [ ]
Next action, owner, and due date: [ ]
Before you start
- Current brief: [Source or notes]
- Work stage: [Source or notes]
- Requested feedback: [Source or notes]
What you will make
A prioritized revision plan linked to the brief and design stage.This is the complete first worksheet from the current edition. The full kit adds the remaining four documents, a worked scenario, and the offline editing workbook.
Worked example
See the worked-case summary
Fictional example included in edition 2.49.1.
Fictional case: the Open Room team reviews an early programme layout in a 35-minute critique. Three reviewers independently produce nine notes, consolidated into six records. Two layout issues become revisions; two questions, one preference, and one new-scope request keep separate owners and dispositions. Original CR01/CR02 layout studies contain the same event copy, showing changed title emphasis and time/session grouping. Familiar internal reviewers inspect CR02; venue details and physical-size legibility remain open, so production is held.
Before you choose
What should I have ready for this kit?
Bring current brief, work stage, requested feedback. Mark anything you still need to check.
How do I know the work is finished?
A prioritized revision plan linked to the brief and design stage. Check your answers against the original records and note anything unresolved before sharing your work.
Does it include a spreadsheet or native app template?
No. You receive editable Markdown documents and an offline HTML workbook. These are not native Excel, Canva, Notion, or Word templates. Extract the whole ZIP before opening the HTML files. Mobile file managers may not run local scripts; the text files and reading edition remain available.
Will this do the work for me?
The kit supplies structure, questions, and examples. You provide the facts, make the decisions, and adapt the finished output. You are responsible for checking the finished work. Custom implementation and professional review are not included.
Created by Pagemage with AI-assisted writing and development. Read how the content and tools are checked. Questions or corrections: hello@pagemage.tech. 14-day refund policy.