Dlead Critique Ritual

---
name: dlead-critique-ritual
description: Designs a Design Critique Ritual with two aims, who comes and who does not, critique split from review and status, a format (round robin, quota or silent first), role sentences, rules with consequences, the reply after and named failure modes. Use for "run dlead-critique-ritual", "fix the design crit", "design critiques are not working", "set up design critique", "crit is a taste argument", "the loudest person redesigns the work", "critique format", "design feedback culture", part of the Claude for Design Leaders Pack by Polar Bear.
---

# Design Critique Ritual

## When To Use
Crit is a calendar slot where the loudest person redesigns the work. People bring finished screens to avoid comments, or skip it. It answers: what is crit for, who is in the room, what gets said in which order, and what happens afterwards?

## When Not To Use
If one presenter needs to get ready for Thursday, use Critique Session Brief. If the whole week of meetings is the problem, not crit alone, start with Design Team Operating Rhythm.

## Inputs
- How crit runs today: cadence, length, who attends, who runs it, what happens to the notes
- One recent session that went badly and one that went well, in three sentences each
If you have none of this, I start from a weekly session with an objective-led round robin and mark the output as a first draft.

## Approach
Design critique as Sarah Gibbons describes it for Nielsen Norman Group (Design Critiques, 2016): a presenter, critiquers and a facilitator, objectives agreed first, round robin or quota formats, and feedback as questions rather than commands. Critique improves the work; a review approves it. The judgment is in the split: the first time a person who can veto says "I prefer", crit becomes approval and people stop bringing early work.

## Workflow
1. Ask three questions: what should crit achieve (pick the top two of improve the work before it ships, spread judgment across the team, show juniors how seniors think, catch system inconsistencies), who can veto the work, and how much time can the team protect each week?
2. Split three meetings on paper: critique improves the work, review approves it with the decision maker present, status reports progress. Decision makers who can veto do not attend critique.
3. Pick the format: round robin (each person in turn), quota (each gives a number of points for and against the objectives; the team sets the number) or silent first (written observations, then discussion) when two voices dominate. Set a timebox per piece and a session cap; the team sets both.
4. Give each role a sentence. Presenter: states objectives and one question, does not defend during observations. Critiquers: questions first, every point tied to an objective, no fixes unless asked. Facilitator: keeps time, turns reactions into questions, and rotates.
5. Write each rule with its consequence, for example: "Points tie to an objective. If not, the facilitator asks which one and the point waits."
6. Set what happens after: the presenter sends a three-line reply (what I heard, what I will change, what I will not and why) within a reply window the team sets and writes down. Notes name the work, never the people.
7. Name the failure modes in advance so anyone can call them: no objectives, too long, presenter defending, critiquers solving, decider in the room, same facilitator every week.

## Output Format
```markdown
# Design Critique Ritual
**Team:** [name] | **Cadence:** [team's choice] | **Session cap:** [team's choice]
**Format:** [round robin / quota / silent first], [timebox per piece], [pieces per session]
## Purpose
[Aim one] and [aim two]
## Who comes and who does not
| Comes | Does not come, and where they go instead |
|---|---|
| [roles] | [decision makers: the review meeting] |
## Roles
| Role | One sentence | Rotates? |
|---|---|---|
| Presenter / Critiquer / Facilitator | [sentence] | [yes / no] |
## Rules with consequences
| Rule | When it is broken |
|---|---|
| [rule] | [what happens] |
## After the session
[Who captures notes, where they live, who sends the three-line reply] | **Reply window:** [the team's reply window]
## Failure modes we watch for
1. [failure mode]
## Decision
[Design lead] confirms the format and the first facilitator by [date]; the team reviews the ritual on [date].
```

## Done When
- Crit, review and status are separate, and nobody with a veto sits in crit
- Every rule has a consequence and every role has one sentence
- The facilitator rotates and the reply after the session has an owner and a written reply window

## Quality Bar
- No ratings, no votes on "best", no tally of who spoke or gave useful feedback
- Claude does not critique the work in this skill, even if screens are pasted
- Timeboxes and quotas are the team's numbers, never invented ones
- Claude designs the ritual; the critique stays human, and nobody is scored

## Next
Run dlead-critique-session-brief (Critique Session Brief) to prepare the first presenter.

## About the makers

This pack is made by Polar Bear, a consultancy built by ex-McKinsey founders with a dream to make AI work for People, not instead of them. We help our clients build people systems and AI-first ways of working, and we run our own company on Claude. If your team has outgrown the self-serve version, message Pauline (linkedin.com/in/paulinebertry).