How to Run a Design Critique in Figma
Design critiques are where teams align on whether a design solves the right problem in the right way. Unlike design reviews (which focus on final decisions before handoff), design critiques are exploratory: they surface issues early, before significant engineering investment.
This guide covers running structured design critiques in Figma that produce actionable feedback rather than circular debates.
Step-by-step guide
Set up a critique frame before the session
Create a dedicated Critique section in your Figma file with: the design frames under review, a Critique Context text block explaining the user problem and design goals, specific questions for reviewers such as Does this empty state communicate the next action clearly, and a Feedback frame with colored stickies: green for what works, yellow for questions, red for problems.
Share the Figma link 24 hours in advance with Commenter access
Send the Figma link with Commenter access to all reviewers before the session. Ask them to leave asynchronous comments using the Comment tool (C key) in the relevant sections. This surfaces initial reactions before the live session, saving meeting time for discussion rather than first impressions.
Start the critique by stating the design questions
Open the critique by reading the specific questions you prepared: We are critiquing the onboarding step 2. The user goal is to connect their first data source. Question 1: is the call-to-action clear? Question 2: is there enough context to understand what connecting does? Setting questions prevents free-form opinion sessions.
Use Figma comments to capture feedback inline
As reviewers give verbal feedback, add a Figma comment on the relevant element in real time. Tag the feedback category in the comment: [UX], [Visual], [Copywriting], [Edge Case]. Use the resolve feature to mark comments that are addressed or out of scope. This creates a permanent record linked directly to the design.
Apply the I like, I wish, What if framework
Structure feedback using this three-part framework: I like the progress indicator at the top. I wish the empty state had a more specific CTA. What if we showed an example data source to make the concept concrete? This framework produces constructive feedback and avoids purely negative sessions.
Separate critique from design direction
The critique identifies problems. The designer determines the solution. Do not let the session turn into design-by-committee where everyone proposes specific UI changes. Capture problems clearly and let the designer return with revised designs that address the identified issues.
Close with decisions and next steps
End every critique with a 5-minute summary: the top 3 issues identified, the severity of each, and the next step: iterate, validate with users, or proceed. Create a Figma comment tagged [DECISION] for each agreed-upon next step so the record is attached to the design.
Common mistakes
Critiquing visual style instead of design decisions
Comments about button colors, font choices, and border radius belong in a visual polish pass, not a design critique. Critiques should evaluate whether the design solves the user problem. Focus on structure, hierarchy, and clarity.
No context provided to reviewers
Showing designs without context leads to opinions, not feedback. Reviewers need to know the user problem, the design constraints, and the specific questions to answer. Prepare the critique frame in advance.
Designer becoming defensive
Critique feedback is about the work, not the designer. Establish this norm explicitly at the start of every critique session. If a designer defends every piece of feedback, the critique is not functioning as intended.
Tips
Limit critique sessions to 45 minutes for a single design surface — longer sessions lose focus
Rotate the facilitator role across the team so the designer can participate as a recipient rather than running the meeting
Use Figma branching to preserve the original design while iterating post-critique
Schedule a critique follow-up 5 days after the session to review the revised design against the captured feedback
How Vantage helps
Vantage integrates with Figma so design context connects to your PRD. Critique feedback captured in Figma comments can be imported as context in Vantage, grounding future PRD updates in the design feedback that shaped the product direction.