Judge the work against the same standard.

Scores a screen or flow against seven product design principles, with findings tied to visible elements.

When to use it: A general design critique of a screen or flow, when you want a scored review rather than open-ended comments.

What you provide: A screenshot of the screen or flow, or a description that names the visible elements and their text.

How it reports: 1-5 per principle; overall 0-100

Audits a screen or flow against five inclusive design principles for cultural fit, checking who the design includes and who it unintentionally leaves out.

When to use it: An inclusion review of a screen or flow: representation, cultural fit, access, language, and user control, judged from what is visible in the design.

What you provide: A screenshot of the screen or flow, or a description that names the visible elements, imagery, and text.

How it reports: 0-2 per principle; overall 0-10

Reviews a screen’s design for accessibility problems that are visible in a screenshot or description, judged against criteria derived from WCAG 2.2.

When to use it: At design time, before a screen is built, to catch the accessibility problems a picture of the design can already show, so they are fixed in the design instead of discovered in the code.

What you provide: A screenshot of the screen at a realistic size, or a description that names the text, its colors, and the controls. State the platform (web, iOS, Android, desktop) when it is known, because target and text expectations differ by platform.

How it reports: No overall score; each finding rated Blocker, Serious, Moderate, or Minor; criteria that cannot be judged from the input are reported as Cannot judge

Reviews every piece of text on a screen and returns a revision for each one that fits the same space and does the same job better.

When to use it: Before design handoff, when a screen’s words need a dedicated pass: headlines, buttons, labels, empty states, and error text that were written in the layout and never reviewed as writing.

What you provide: A screenshot of the screen, or the screen’s text supplied directly (a copy list, a transcript of the design, or the strings from the product). If text is supplied directly, say so in the result.

How it reports: None

Predicts what a first-time visitor will remember after seeing a screen for five seconds, and which notable elements they will miss.

When to use it: A first-impression check on a landing page, a hero section, an app screen, or any single screen whose job is to land its message and its main action within seconds.

What you provide: A screenshot of one screen at its full bounds, or a description that names the visible elements and their text. One screen per run.

How it reports: Memorability 0-10; simulated panel of 5; 3-of-5 rule

Predicts the three places a viewer’s eye will land first on a screen, in order, with positions a tool can draw as an overlay.

When to use it: To check whether a screen’s visual hierarchy sends attention where the design intends, especially when something decorative might be out-pulling the headline or the main action.

What you provide: A screenshot of the screen (required for coordinates). Optionally, the intended attention path: the elements the design wants seen first, second, and third. A text description alone can support the ranked prediction but not the coordinates; say so and omit them.

How it reports: Exactly 3 hotspots; intensity High 70-100, Medium 40-69, Low 20-39

Reviews a design submission, a multi-frame board with its rationale, against seven dimensions of professional design quality, the way a design leader would in a critique.

When to use it: Before a design critique, a handoff, or a portfolio review, when the question is not only whether the screens work but whether the work itself is good: well aimed, well grounded, well built, and well explained.

What you provide: The design as a multi-frame board (a board overview plus the frames in reading order), with whatever rationale the designer has written on the board or alongside it. A single screen can be submitted, but the dimensions that judge intent and evidence will usually be unjudgeable from a screen alone.

How it reports: 1-5 per dimension; overall 0-100 across the dimensions that could be judged

Reviews a research study plan before it is fielded, judging whether the questions are answerable, the method fits them, and the participants and materials will produce evidence the team can act on.

When to use it: Before recruiting begins for an interview study, a usability study, a diary study, or any planned piece of product research, when the cost of fixing the plan is still low and the cost of fielding a flawed one is not yet paid.

What you provide: The study plan as written: its goals or research questions, the method, the participant definition and screening approach, and whatever session structure, tasks, or materials the plan specifies. A short informal plan is a valid input; the review judges what is there against what the study needs.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Ready, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall readiness verdict

Reviews a survey questionnaire question by question, finding the wording, scale, and ordering flaws that bias answers or make them impossible to give, and suggesting a corrected version of each flawed question.

When to use it: Before a survey is sent, while the questionnaire can still be changed: for satisfaction surveys, screening surveys, product feedback surveys, and any questionnaire whose results will be quoted as evidence.

What you provide: The full questionnaire text: the introduction shown to respondents, every question with its answer options and scales in order, and any skip logic described. The survey’s purpose and audience, when known, sharpen the review; without them the review judges craft alone and says so.

How it reports: No overall score; every flaw rated Invalidating, Biasing, or Burden, with a suggested revision for each flawed question

Reviews a research readout, the report or summary stakeholders will read, judging whether every claim traces to evidence, whether observation and interpretation are kept apart, and whether recommendations stay proportional to what the study can support.

When to use it: Before a research readout is circulated: the findings deck, the summary document, or the report a team will use to decide something, when the question is whether a reader can trust what it claims.

What you provide: The readout itself, in full: claims, quotes, numbers, and recommendations as the audience will see them. Access to the underlying evidence (session notes, recordings, response data) strengthens the review when available; without it, the review judges the readout’s internal support and labels every claim check accordingly.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, plus a claim-by-claim audit and a reliance verdict

Reviews a competitive analysis, judging whether the competitor set is complete, the evidence is first-hand and dated, the comparison serves the reader’s decision, and competitor strengths are reported as honestly as their weaknesses.

When to use it: Before a competitive analysis is presented or used to set strategy, pricing, or roadmap priorities, when the document will be believed, quoted, and planned from, and the question is whether its picture of the market was assembled honestly enough to bear that weight.

What you provide: The competitive analysis as written: the competitor set, the comparison, and the conclusions drawn from them. Source material behind the analysis (product trials, pricing pages, customer reviews, win and loss interviews) strengthens the review when supplied; without it, the review judges the evidence the document presents and says so.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall reliance verdict

Reviews a product requirements document before a team builds against it, judging whether the problem is established with evidence, the scope is decidable, success is measurable, and the undecided things are labeled as undecided.

When to use it: At the point a PRD, spec, or feature brief is handed to design and engineering to build from, or is sent upward for approval to build: after the thinking is written down and before the building starts.

What you provide: The PRD as written, including its goals, scope, and success measures sections in whatever form the team keeps them.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Ready, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall readiness verdict

Reviews a product roadmap, judging whether it is organized by outcomes rather than outputs, whether each item traces to a strategy, whether its dates are honest about their certainty, and whether what is not on it is as clear as what is.

When to use it: Before a roadmap is shared beyond the product team: the planning cycle review, the board or stakeholder presentation, the sales enablement handoff, or the moment dates on it are about to be quoted to customers.

What you provide: The roadmap as presented: its items, groupings, and dates or horizons in whatever form the team keeps them, board, document, or slides.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall reliance verdict

Reviews a problem statement or problem brief, judging whether it names a specific person, rests on evidence, states the cost of the status quo, stays free of a smuggled-in solution, and draws its own boundary.

When to use it: At the start of discovery or a design challenge, before solution work begins, and at intake, when a team or a stakeholder brings a problem to be worked on.

What you provide: The problem statement as written, a sentence, a paragraph, or a one-page brief.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall verdict on whether the statement is ready to work from

Reviews a user story and its acceptance criteria, judging whether the story is valuable to a named user, small and independent enough to build, estimable from what is written, and confirmed by criteria a tester could actually check.

When to use it: At backlog refinement or sprint planning, before a story is estimated or pulled into a sprint, and when a story keeps bouncing back from development or testing with questions.

What you provide: One user story with its acceptance criteria, or a small set of stories from the same feature.

How it reports: No numeric score; each story judged against each criterion, with an overall readiness verdict per story

Reviews a project plan before anyone commits to its dates, judging whether its outcome and scope are decidable, its milestones are verifiable states, its estimates take the outside view, its critical path is visible, its risks, assumptions, issues, and dependencies are kept as a living register, and it knows how it will change.

When to use it: Before a project plan is committed to: dates promised, teams booked, stakeholders told. Also at any major replan, when the question is whether the new dates deserve more belief than the old ones did.

What you provide: The project plan as written: goal, scope, milestones, timeline, owners, and risk material.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Ready, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall commitment verdict

Reviews a positioning document against the five components of effective positioning, judging whether the competitive alternatives are the real ones, the unique attributes are actually unique, the value has proof, the best-fit customer is specific, and the market category is chosen rather than defaulted into.

When to use it: When positioning is being set or reset: a positioning document or canvas, a category decision, or the input that messaging, sales decks, and a homepage will all be built from, when the question is whether the positioning itself holds together.

What you provide: The positioning document as written: the components in whatever form the team keeps them, canvas, doc, or deck section.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall verdict

Reviews a messaging document, judging whether it leads with an insight rather than the product, engages the alternatives honestly, lets the differentiated value carry the hierarchy, attaches proof at the right strength, keeps the customer as the subject, and answers objections before closing with a clear ask.

When to use it: When a messaging guide, message hierarchy, or pitch narrative is about to become the words a homepage, a sales deck, and a sales team all repeat: before it is published or rolled out.

What you provide: The messaging document as written: core message, pillars or value propositions, and proof points, in whatever form the team keeps them.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall verdict

Reviews a product launch plan, judging whether the launch tier is named and resourced to match, every audience has a message and a moment, internal teams are enabled rather than surprised, execution is sequenced and owned, success is instrumented before launch day, and risk, rollback, and a slipping date are all planned for.

When to use it: Weeks before a product or feature launch, while the plan can still change: when the question is whether this launch will land as one coordinated event or as a release the market barely notices.

What you provide: The launch plan as written: goals, tier, timeline, assets, owners, and channel activities.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Ready, Needs work, or Missing, with a launch readiness verdict

Reviews a competitive battlecard, judging whether its claims about the competitor are sourced and dated, whether the competitor's strengths are stated honestly, whether the card arms a rep for both winning and losing ground, whether it can be used in the middle of a live call, and whether its freshness is owned.

When to use it: Before a battlecard is published to the sales team, and whenever one is refreshed: when the question is whether a rep can trust what it says in front of a buyer who may know the competitor better than the card does.

What you provide: The battlecard as written: competitor overview, differentiators, talk tracks, objection handling, pricing notes, and proof points.

How it reports: No numeric score; each criterion judged Holds, Needs work, or Missing, with an overall verdict