/47-design-review-global

name: 47-design-review-global
description: "Use when the user wants a design reviewed against a scoring rubric across 4 groups — brand consistency, hierarchy and readability and accessibility, conversion elements, platform fit — 10 points each. Output is specific per-issue feedback plus a verdict of approve, minor fix, or redo. Trigger on 'design review', 'review this design', 'design feedback', 'score this design', 'brand check', 'is this design good', or 'approve this design'."
metadata:
  version: 1.0.0
  category: operations
license: MIT
triggers:
  - "design review"
  - "review this design"
  - "design feedback"
  - "score this design"
  - "brand check"
  - "is this design good"
  - "approve this design"
  - "visual check"
output: "File .md or in-chat feedback — quick verdict, 4-group score out of 40, detailed checklist, feedback in issue - why - how to fix format, action summary. The designer can act on it immediately."
related:
  - product-marketing-context-global
  - 46-brand-guideline-global
  - 41-campaign-asset-list-global
  - 42-image-brief-global
  - 43-carousel-brief-global
  - 45-design-tool-brief-global
  - 49-html-email-template-global
  - 62-marketing-review-global
  - 12-landing-page-brief-global

Design Review (Global)

Reviewing design is not about liking it. It is checking whether the design does its job. Beautiful work that does not convert has failed. Converting work that breaks the brand has also failed. Feedback must be specific enough for the designer to act without asking.

Information gathering

Read the brand guideline (`46-brand-guideline-global`) and the originating brief. If information is missing, ask up to 4 questions:

1. **What is being reviewed?** File, screenshot, or share link — and what type (social post, ad banner, carousel, landing page, email)? 2. **Objective and funnel stage?** Awareness, trust, or conversion — TOFU, MOFU, or BOFU? 3. **Which channel does it run on?** Meta, TikTok, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, email, or website? 4. **Which brand guideline applies?** If none exists, the brand section can only be scored loosely — propose running `46-brand-guideline-global` first.

Principles

1. **Feedback specific enough to fix without a follow-up.** "It doesn't feel right" is not feedback. 2. **Separate must-fix (blocker) from should-fix (suggestion).** 3. **Never reject on personal taste** — every deduction cites a checklist item. 4. **Review within 24 hours.** Do not let a designer wait and block the workflow. 5. **Once approved, do not reopen** after the designer exports. 6. **If more than 50% needs rebuilding, rewrite the brief** instead of looping revisions.

Workflow

1. Look at the whole thing first (3 seconds)

View it as a real user would — do not zoom into detail yet. Answer two questions: within three seconds, is it clear what this design is saying? Where does the eye land first?

2. Score the 4 criteria groups

Each group is worth 10 points, 40 total. Score against the checklist below; deduct in proportion to the impact of each failure.

3. Write feedback in the standard format

Every issue is written as **[Issue] -> [Why it is wrong] -> [Exactly how to fix it]**.

4. Give a verdict and an action summary

State the verdict, list fixes in priority order, and name the condition for approval.

Output structure

# Design Review — [Asset name] — [date]

## Quick verdict
| Criterion | Assessment | Note |
|-----------|-----------|------|
| On brand? | OK / Warning / Fail | |
| Clear hierarchy? | OK / Warning / Fail | |
| Readable on mobile? | OK / Warning / Fail | |
| Meets the objective? | OK / Warning / Fail | |

## Total: [X/40]
| Group | Score | Assessment |
|-------|-------|-----------|
| A. Brand consistency | /10 | |
| B. Hierarchy, readability, accessibility | /10 | |
| C. Conversion elements | /10 | |
| D. Platform fit | /10 | |

Verdict: APPROVE / MINOR FIX (fix per notes, no re-review needed) / REDO [section] (reason)

## A. Brand consistency [/10]
- [ ] Logo uses the right version, position, and clear space
- [ ] Colors match the brand palette exactly (not a near-match with the wrong value)
- [ ] Fonts are [heading font] / [body font]
- [ ] Visual tone matches the brand personality
- [ ] No element violates a guideline do or don't
- [ ] No generic stock imagery diluting the brand
Issue: [issue] -> [why] -> [how to fix]

## B. Hierarchy, readability, accessibility [/10]
- [ ] One clear focal point — no competing centers of attention
- [ ] Logical reading order: headline -> subhead -> body -> CTA
- [ ] The most important element carries enough visual weight (size, color, contrast)
- [ ] The headline is readable in three seconds
- [ ] Body type is at least 14px and readable on a phone
- [ ] Text contrast meets WCAG AA: 4.5:1 for body, 3:1 for large text (24px+, or 18.66px+ bold)
- [ ] Icons and meaningful graphics meet 3:1 contrast; meaning is never carried by color alone
- [ ] Alt text is drafted and ready for the post or email; video has captions
- [ ] Not overloaded — three messages maximum, enough negative space
- [ ] Spacing is consistent (8px grid); no typos, broken glyphs, or missing characters
Issue: [issue] -> [why] -> [how to fix]

## C. Conversion elements [/10]
- [ ] CTA stands out, contrasts with its ground, uses a verb plus a benefit
- [ ] USP or offer is explicit (at BOFU the viewer knows exactly what they get)
- [ ] Trust elements present where needed: figures, testimonial, badge
- [ ] Urgency or scarcity present if the campaign requires it, and genuinely true
- [ ] The hook is strong enough (at TOFU, it stops the scroll in about 1.5 seconds)
- [ ] Claims are substantiated; disclosures present where required
Issue: [issue] -> [why] -> [how to fix]

## D. Platform fit [/10]
- [ ] Dimensions match the channel spec
- [ ] Safe zones respected — text and CTA are not covered by UI or cropped
- [ ] Mobile-friendly (readable at 375px width)
- [ ] File size and format co