How is Vantage different from ChatGPT or Claude?

ChatGPT and Claude are great for one-off generation. Vantage is a full workspace. It connects your tools, tracks dependencies across projects, catches conflicts between products, and surfaces what needs your attention every morning. It also remembers every past decision, so a new PM can query across all projects and get cited answers in seconds.

Do I have to switch away from Notion or Linear?

No. You keep all your tools. Vantage connects to them and builds intelligence on top. When you're ready, you can push tickets to Linear or Jira. But the value starts before you create anything — just by connecting your tools and seeing what the intelligence layer surfaces.

What happens on day one?

You connect your tools — GitHub, Linear, Slack — 2 minutes each. Vantage indexes your existing data overnight. By the next morning, you see your first decision queue: what's stale, what conflicts, what changed. No manual setup. No templates to fill out.

What if I only manage one project?

Vantage works for single projects, but it shines when you manage 3–5 or more. Conflict detection, cross-project memory, and the decision queue are most valuable when you have multiple projects that need to stay in sync. If you manage one project, start with the free tier and see if the cited query engine alone saves you time.

All data encrypted in transit and at rest. We never train on your data — the AI providers we use are contractually barred from it. You can disconnect any integration or delete your account at any time. Pursuing SOC 2 Type II.

How does Vantage keep documents and tickets up to date?

When context shifts, you add the new information and Vantage rebuilds every connected deliverable. Documents, prototypes, and tickets all update. You review the changes, accept or reject each one, and approve. Nothing updates silently, and every change is traceable.

How do I get started?

Sign up free at app.vantageos.tech. Connect your tools, and generate your first grounded document within minutes. No credit card required. Upgrade when you need more projects or features.

How do you give good design feedback in Figma?

Prefix comments with a category (Usability, Consistency, Accessibility, Business), pin them to specific layers rather than general areas, and always include both the issue and a suggested direction. Avoid subjective statements without rationale — 'The button color does not meet WCAG AA contrast' is actionable, 'I don't like the button' is not.

What is a design critique vs a design review?

A critique is a collaborative feedback session focused on improving the work — the goal is to strengthen the design before it ships. A review is an approval gate where a stakeholder decides whether the design is ready to proceed. Critiques happen during the design process; reviews happen at the end. Most teams need both.

How often should product teams do design critiques?

Run a critique at least once per major feature before development begins, and once more after the first round of revisions. Teams shipping weekly benefit from a standing weekly critique slot where any designer can bring work in progress. The async-then-live format keeps each session under 45 minutes.

How-To2026-09-0310 min read

How to Create a Design Critique Workflow in Figma

Design critiques are where good work becomes great work, but unstructured feedback sessions often devolve into bikeshedding. 'I don't like the color' is not actionable. 'The contrast ratio on the CTA fails WCAG AA against the background' is. Figma's collaboration features — comments, sections, component states, and branching — provide the infrastructure for critiques that actually improve the design.

This guide shows you how to set up a repeatable critique workflow in Figma that gives reviewers context before they comment, channels feedback through structured prompts, and tracks resolution status so nothing gets lost between review rounds. The result is a process that takes less time than freeform feedback while producing more useful output.

Step-by-step guide

Create a dedicated review page in your Figma file

Add a page called 'Design Review — [Date]' to your file for each review round. On this page, arrange the screens being reviewed in a logical flow (not scattered artboards) with numbered annotations explaining the design decisions. This gives reviewers the narrative before they start picking things apart.

Right-click in the pages panel and select 'Add page'
Lay out screens left-to-right in task flow order
Add text annotations below each screen explaining the key decisions and tradeoffs

Build a critique status component set

Create a component set with four variants: 'Open' (yellow), 'In Progress' (blue), 'Resolved' (green), and 'Won't Fix' (gray). Place an instance of this component next to each feedback item so anyone scanning the file can see the resolution status at a glance. This is the single most effective upgrade to a Figma critique workflow.

Create a small pill-shaped frame with a text label and colored background
Add the four variants with distinct colors and names
Publish the component to your team library so it is reusable across files

Define the feedback prompt structure

Add a text block at the top of the review page with the critique prompts. Use four categories: 'Usability' (can users accomplish the task?), 'Consistency' (does it match our design system?), 'Accessibility' (does it meet WCAG standards?), and 'Business Alignment' (does it serve the stated goal?). Asking reviewers to categorize their feedback forces specificity.

Write 2-3 guiding questions under each category
Include a note asking reviewers to reference specific frames, not general impressions
Link to the product brief or PRD so reviewers have business context

Set up Figma commenting conventions

Establish a commenting protocol: prefix every comment with a category tag — [Usability], [Consistency], [A11y], or [Business]. Pin comments to specific layers rather than general areas. Require that every critique comment includes both the issue and a suggested direction, even if rough. This eliminates 'I don't like it' comments that the designer cannot act on.

Document the protocol in a sticky note on the review page
Ask reviewers to resolve their own comments once they have confirmed the fix
Use threaded replies for discussion, not new comments on the same area

Run an asynchronous review window before the live session

Give reviewers 24-48 hours to leave async comments before the live critique meeting. This lets introverted team members contribute thoughtfully and ensures the live session focuses on discussion and decision-making, not initial reactions. Tag reviewers in a Slack message with the Figma link and a deadline for async feedback.

Share the review page link with 'can comment' permissions
Set a specific deadline for async feedback (e.g., 'Comments due by Thursday 2pm')
Ask the design lead to triage and group similar comments before the live session

Conduct the live critique session with a facilitator

In the live session, walk through feedback grouped by category, not screen by screen. The facilitator reads each comment group, the designer responds, and the team decides: fix, won't fix, or needs more exploration. Update the status component instance in real time during the meeting so the file reflects decisions immediately.

Assign a facilitator who is not the designer (to keep the session structured)
Timebox each category to prevent one topic from consuming the entire session
Record decisions in a Figma text block on the review page for future reference

Close the review loop with a revision pass

After the critique, the designer addresses all 'Open' and 'In Progress' items and updates status components to 'Resolved' or 'Won't Fix' (with a note explaining why). The review page then becomes a permanent record of what was discussed and decided, which is invaluable when stakeholders later ask 'why did we do it this way?'

Set a deadline for the revision pass (typically 2-3 days after the critique)
Ask the facilitator to do a final scan confirming all items have a status
Archive the review page by moving it to the end of the pages list (do not delete it)

Common mistakes

Allowing unstructured free-for-all comments

Without category tags and specificity requirements, comments tend toward vague aesthetic preferences that the designer cannot act on. Establishing a protocol up front does not stifle feedback — it channels it into forms that actually improve the design.

Reviewing the design without business context

A design cannot be evaluated without knowing the goal it serves. Always link the product brief or PRD on the review page. Reviewers who do not understand the constraints will suggest changes that are technically better but strategically wrong.

Skipping the async window and going straight to a live session

Live-only critiques favor the loudest voice in the room and penalize people who need time to think. The async window captures thoughtful feedback from everyone, and the live session becomes a discussion of that feedback rather than a brainstorm.

Not tracking resolution status on feedback items

Without a visible status for each piece of feedback, items get lost between rounds. The designer thinks they addressed everything; the reviewer thinks their comment was ignored. A simple status component eliminates this ambiguity.

Tips

Create a Figma template file for critiques so every review starts with the status components, feedback prompts, and page structure already in place.

Use Figma's 'Observation mode' (click a reviewer's avatar) during live sessions so everyone sees the same viewport without fighting for scroll position.

Color-code the review page background (light yellow for in-progress, light green for complete) so the file thumbnail signals review status at a glance.

Rotate the facilitator role weekly to distribute the context-building and develop critique skills across the team.

How Vantage helps

Vantage's Figma integration lets you pull design review outcomes directly into your product context. When critique decisions affect requirements or scope, Vantage surfaces those changes alongside your PRD so the specification stays in sync with what the design team actually committed to building.