Design Review

Design Artifact Review

Review design artifacts for rigor, completeness, and adherence to Design in Practice principles.

Setup

If artifact path provided: Read the artifact completely If no path: Ask which artifact to review, or list available design documents

Review Framework

Perform targeted review based on artifact type. Each review checks for common failure modes that lead to poor solutions.

ARTIFACT TYPE: Problem Statement

Check 1: Solution Contamination

Question: Does the problem statement contain or imply solutions?

Red flags:

• "We need to..." (solution language)
• Technology names (Redis, Kafka, etc.) unless they ARE the problem
• "Add", "implement", "create", "build" verbs
• Comparison to how other systems work

Test: Could multiple fundamentally different solutions address this statement?

• YES → Good problem statement (solution-agnostic)
• NO → Solution is embedded, rewrite needed

Output:

Solution Contamination: [CLEAN | CONTAMINATED]

Evidence:
- [Quote from statement showing contamination, or "None found"]

Recommendation:
- [How to remove solution language]

Check 2: Root Cause vs. Symptom

Question: Does this describe the mechanism, or just the observable effect?

Symptom language:

• "Users experience..."
• "The system is slow/broken/failing..."
• "Errors occur when..."

Mechanism language:

• "Because X happens, Y results in Z"
• "The [component] does [action] which causes [effect]"
• Clear causal chain

Test: Ask "Why?" - if there's a deeper answer, this is a symptom.

Output:

Root Cause Analysis: [MECHANISM | SYMPTOM | UNCLEAR]

Depth check:
- Statement says: [quote]
- Ask "Why?": [deeper cause if exists]
- Assessment: [Is this the root or just a layer?]

Recommendation:
- [How to dig deeper, or "Root cause identified"]

Check 3: Specificity

Question: Is the problem precise enough to guide solution selection?

Vague indicators:

• "Performance issues" (which metric? what threshold?)
• "Users are confused" (which users? confused about what?)
• "The code is messy" (what aspect? what's the impact?)

Specific indicators:

• Quantified thresholds ("response time > 2s")
• Named components ("SessionManager.close()")
• Reproducible conditions ("when concurrent users > 50")

Output:

Specificity: [PRECISE | VAGUE | MIXED]

Vague elements:
- [Element 1]: [How to make specific]
- [Element 2]: [How to make specific]

Missing specifics:
- [What metric/threshold/condition is unclear]

Check 4: Evidence Quality

Question: Is the diagnosis based on verified facts or assumptions?

Look for:

• Evidence cited for each claim
• Ruled-out alternatives documented
• Hypothesis testing described
• Data sources referenced

Output:

Evidence Quality: [VERIFIED | ASSUMED | MIXED]

Claims without evidence:
- [Claim 1]: [What evidence is needed]
- [Claim 2]: [What evidence is needed]

Ruled-out alternatives:
- [Listed? How many? Are they reasonable alternatives?]

Check 5: The Obvious Solution Test

Question: Does the solution feel obvious after reading this statement?

If the reader finishes the problem statement and doesn't immediately think "oh, we should do X", the diagnosis is incomplete.

Output:

Obvious Solution Test: [PASS | FAIL | PARTIAL]

After reading, the obvious action is: [What seems like the right solution]

If FAIL:
- What's unclear: [What question remains]
- What's missing: [What would make it obvious]

Problem Statement Verdict

## Problem Statement Review Summary

| Check | Result | Action Needed |
|-------|--------|---------------|
| Solution Contamination | [CLEAN/CONTAMINATED] | [Action or "None"] |
| Root Cause | [MECHANISM/SYMPTOM] | [Action or "None"] |
| Specificity | [PRECISE/VAGUE] | [Action or "None"] |
| Evidence | [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] | [Action or "None"] |
| Obvious Solution | [PASS/FAIL] | [Action or "None"] |

**Verdict:** [READY_FOR_DIRECTION | NEEDS_REVISION | BACK_TO_DESCRIBE]

**Top Issue:** [Most critical thing to fix]

**Recommended Action:** [Specific next step]

ARTIFACT TYPE: Decision Matrix

Check 1: Status Quo Baseline

Question: Is "do nothing" the first column?

The Status Quo:

• Provides baseline for comparison
• Forces articulation of current state costs
• Prevents "solution in search of problem"

Output:

Status Quo Baseline: [PRESENT | MISSING]

If missing:
- Impact: Cannot compare alternatives to current state
- Fix: Add Status Quo column with honest assessment

Check 2: Fact vs. Judgment Separation

Question: Is cell text factual and neutral, with judgment shown separately?

Contaminated cells:

• "Good performance" (judgment as text)
• "Easy to implement" (subjective)
• "Better than X" (comparative judgment)

Clean cells:

• "< 10ms p99 latency" (measurable fact)
• "Requires changes to 3 files" (countable)
• "Uses existing auth pattern" (verifiable)

Output:

Fact/Judgment Separation: [CLEAN | CONTAMINATED]

Contaminated cells:
| Row | Column | Current Text | Factual Rewrite |
|-----|--------|--------------|-----------------|
| [Row] | [Col] | "[Text]" | "[Suggestion]" |

Assessment indicators:
- Are judgments (good/bad) shown via color/symbol, not text? [YES/NO]

Check 3: Criteria Completeness

Question: Are all relevant trade-off dimensions represented?

Common missing criteria:

• Maintenance burden (long-term cost)
• Rollback difficulty (reversibility)
• Team expertise (can we actually do this?)
• Integration complexity (how it affects other systems)
• Failure modes (what happens when it breaks?)

Output:

Criteria Completeness: [COMPLETE | GAPS]

Present criteria: [List]

Potentially missing:
- [Criterion]: [Why it matters for this decision]
- [Criterion]: [Why it matters for this decision]

Recommendation:
- [Which criteria to add]

Check 4: Approach Diversity

Question: Are the approaches fundamentally different, or variations of the same idea?

Insufficient diversity:

• "Option A: Use Redis" / "Option B: Use Memcached" (same category)
• All options involve adding something (no "remove feature" option)
• All options are technical (no process/product options)

Good diversity:

• Different architectural approaches
• Build vs. Buy vs. Remove
• Technical vs. Process vs. Product solutions

Output:

Approach Diversity: [DIVERSE | SIMILAR]

Approaches listed:
- [Approach 1]: [Category]
- [Approach 2]: [Category]
- [Approach 3]: [Category]

Missing perspectives:
- [What category of solution wasn't considered]

Check 5: Cell Verification

Question: Are the facts in the matrix verifiable and accurate?

Spot-check 2-3 claims:

• Can this be verified in the codebase?
• Is this number accurate?
• Is this comparison fair?

Output:

Cell Verification: [VERIFIED | UNVERIFIED | ERRORS]

Spot checks:
- [Cell Row/Col]: [Claim] → [Verification result]
- [Cell Row/Col]: [Claim] → [Verification result]

Errors found:
- [Cell]: [What's wrong and what's correct]

Decision Matrix Verdict

## Decision Matrix Review Summary

| Check | Result | Action Needed |
|-------|--------|---------------|
| Status Quo Baseline | [PRESENT/MISSING] | [Action or "None"] |
| Fact/Judgment Separation | [CLEAN/CONTAMINATED] | [Action or "None"] |
| Criteria Completeness | [COMPLETE/GAPS] | [Action or "None"] |
| Approach Diversity | [DIVERSE/SIMILAR] | [Action or "None"] |
| Cell Verification | [VERIFIED/ERRORS] | [Action or "None"] |

**Verdict:** [READY_FOR_DECISION | NEEDS_REVISION | NEEDS_MORE_OPTIONS]

**Selected approach justified?** [YES/NO - Is the rationale sound?]

**Top Issue:** [Most critical thing to fix]

**Recommended Action:** [Specific next step]

ARTIFACT TYPE: Scope Document (Delimit Phase)

Check 1: Explicit Non-Goals

Question: Are out-of-scope items explicitly listed?

Scope creep happens when boundaries are implicit. Explicit non-goals:

• Prevent "while we're in there" additions
• Set expectations with stakeholders
• Provide reference when scope questions arise

Output:

Non-Goals: [EXPLICIT | IMPLICIT | MISSING]

Listed non-goals: [count]

Likely scope creep vectors not addressed:
- [Related item that might get added]
- [Adjacent problem that might expand scope]

Check 2: Constraint Realism

Question: Are the constraints achievable and honest?

Look for:

• Conflicting constraints ("fast AND cheap AND complete")
• Unstated constraints (timeline, budget, expertise)
• Over-optimistic assumptions

Output:

Constraints: [REALISTIC | OPTIMISTIC | CONFLICTING]

Constraint conflicts:
- [Constraint A] vs [Constraint B]: [Why they conflict]

Missing constraints:
- [What's unstated but will affect the work]

COMBINED REVIEW (Full Design Package)

When reviewing Problem Statement + Decision Matrix + Plan together:

Alignment Check

1. Problem → Direction alignment:

   • Does the selected approach actually address the diagnosed problem?
   • Or does it solve a different/adjacent problem?

2. Scope → Plan alignment:

   • Does the plan stay within stated scope?
   • Are non-goals respected in the implementation?

3. Decision rationale → Plan execution:

   • Does the plan leverage the reasons the approach was chosen?
   • Are accepted trade-offs reflected in implementation?

Output:

## Alignment Review

Problem → Direction: [ALIGNED | DRIFT]
- [Evidence of alignment or drift]

Scope → Plan: [ALIGNED | CREEP]
- [Evidence of scope adherence or creep]

Decision → Plan: [ALIGNED | INCONSISTENT]
- [Does plan execute on decision rationale?]

Final Report Template

## Design Artifact Review Report

**Artifact(s) Reviewed:** [List]
**Date:** [YYYY-MM-DD]

### Summary

| Artifact | Verdict | Key Issues |
|----------|---------|------------|
| Problem Statement | [READY/REVISION/BACK] | [Top issue] |
| Decision Matrix | [READY/REVISION/MORE] | [Top issue] |
| Scope Document | [READY/REVISION] | [Top issue] |
| Alignment | [ALIGNED/DRIFT] | [Top issue] |

### Critical Findings

1. **[ARTIFACT-CHECK]** [Severity]
   - Issue: [What's wrong]
   - Impact: [Why it matters]
   - Fix: [Specific action]

2. **[ARTIFACT-CHECK]** [Severity]
   - Issue: [What's wrong]
   - Impact: [Why it matters]
   - Fix: [Specific action]

### Recommended Actions

1. [Most important action]
2. [Second action]
3. [Third action]

### Overall Verdict

[PROCEED_TO_IMPLEMENTATION | REVISE_ARTIFACTS | RETURN_TO_EARLIER_PHASE]

**Rationale:** [1-2 sentences]