Facilitating Design Critique

Facilitating Design Critique

This skill grounds the _facilitation_ of design critique in two Bitwarden sources of truth:

the Weekly Design Critique & Etiquette Quick Guide

and the Product Design Review Guidelines.

Read the Confluence pages directly when prepping a real session — the get_confluence_page MCP

tool fetches them. This skill is the practitioner's quick reference, not a replacement for

those pages.

> Cross-plugin dependency. When the design under discussion lives in a Figma file, this

> skill composes using-figma from the bitwarden-design-tools plugin — install it

> alongside bitwarden-designer for the full composition to work.

Pick the right mode

Bitwarden runs two distinct kinds of critique. Treat them differently.

• Weekly Design Critique. Recurring team session. Presenter sets context for a piece of

work-in-progress; the room asks clarifying questions, then gives feedback. Lightweight

cadence, peer-to-peer, the presenter decides what to apply.

• Product Design Review. Stakeholder review for a specific design proposal. Invites

product, engineering, research as relevant. Heavier facilitation: scope, criteria, briefing,

walkthrough, structured feedback collection.

Ask which mode the user means before suggesting a structure. The roles, prep, and time

investment differ.

Roles in the room

• Presenter. Sets context: the goal of the design, the constraints, the open questions,

and what kind of feedback they want. The presenter owns what they apply.

• Facilitator. Shepherds the session: redirects when discussion drifts, holds a "parking

lot" for side issues that aren't central to the scope, and protects the presenter's stated

feedback ask. In weekly critique this is usually a rotating role; in product design reviews

it's an explicit appointment.

• Participants. Ask before judging. Share observations, concerns, and ideas. Tied to user

and product goals, not personal preference. Don't dominate.

The Weekly Design Critique Quick Guide reduces this to: **critique the work, support the

person, improve the product.**

Session shape

Both modes share the same arc; the depth differs.

• Presenter sets context. Goal, constraints, open questions, the kind of feedback wanted.

In product design reviews, this also covers background and the "why" — relevant

documentation, early iterations, user research findings, business goals, end-user goals.

• Clarifying questions. Ask before judging or suggesting. The room doesn't critique

what it doesn't yet understand.

• Walkthrough and feedback. Presenter walks the design. Participants share feedback tied

to user impact, product goals, standards, or technical constraints.

• Wrap-up. Key takeaways and next steps. In product design reviews, document feedback for

future reference in a preferred format and prioritize issues.

Feedback etiquette — do and don't

Do

• Be specific and constructive.
• Explain _why_ something works or doesn't.
• Ask questions to understand intent.
• Call out what's working, not just issues.
• Respect time and stay on topic.

Don't

• Make it personal.
• Give vague opinions like "I don't like it."
• Dominate the conversation.
• Jump to solutions without context.
• Design on the spot — describe the gap, let the designer solve.

A useful set of opening phrases when the room stalls:

• "What problem is this solving for the user?"
• "I'm unclear about [blank] — could you explain?"
• "Have we considered [blank] as an alternative?"
• "This part feels strong because [blank]."

Common participation traps

• "I don't like it." Not feedback. Tie the observation to a user need, business need,

standard, convention, or technical constraint — or skip it.

• "You are not the user." Personal bias presented as universal experience. Surface it as

bias, not as a finding.

• Asking _why_ badly. "Why did you do that?" puts the designer on the defensive. "What

are you trying to achieve by doing X?" gets at the same thing without the edge.

• Solutioning during the review. A well-meaning suggestion can cascade through a design.

Describe the gap. Let the designer weigh the fix offline.

• Negative-only feedback. Designers move in the direction of what's working as much as

away from what isn't. Lead with strengths, then issues.

• The unconsidered consequence. "Could we just…" requests often spiral. When a suggestion

feels simple, name the cascading effects you can see and let the designer decide.

Facilitator playbook for product design reviews

When facilitating (not just participating):

• Before the review. Pick a method to collect feedback. Identify and invite the right

stakeholders. Confirm the presenter has the briefing material ready (goals, background,

early iterations, user research, business and end-user goals).

• During the review. Define scope. Set feedback expectations. Surface the "why." Run the

walkthrough. Open the floor with the scope and criteria already named. Document feedback in

the agreed format. Hold the parking lot for off-scope discussion.

• After the review. Prioritize the issues raised. Confirm next steps with the presenter.

Composing with other skills

• design-review. During the session, the _substance_ of feedback runs through

design-review — the 30/60/90 framework, the Code of Conduct, and (at 60%/90%) the

content-style-guide. This skill shapes the room; design-review shapes what's said.

• using-figma. When the presentation is from a Figma file, use using-figma to bring

the design context into the discussion (screenshot, metadata, variables) without

context-bombing the room.

Output format

When asked to help prep or run a critique:

• Mode — Weekly Critique or Product Design Review.
• Roles — who's facilitating, who's presenting, who's participating.
• Presenter's setup — goal, constraints, open questions, the feedback ask.
• Agenda / arc — context → clarifying questions → walkthrough → feedback → wrap-up.
• Watch-outs for the room — the specific etiquette traps likely to come up given the

work being presented.

Always end with the wrap-up question explicit: _what is the presenter going to do next?_