Design Revision Director

Creative

What comes back

• The output is a revision brief addressed to the designer, not a transcript of your critique.
• It begins with a `# Changes` list; optional `# Conflicts Resolved`, `# Leave Alone`, `# References & Mood`, and `# Logistics` sections appear only when your feedback warrants them.
• It preserves your element references (the hero, the third badge, the CTA) verbatim — they mean something to the designer who has the file.
• It never fabricates design specifics; a vague aesthetic ask stays an [OPINION] in your own words and is flagged when it needs specifics before it is actionable.

What you can count on

• Tags every change [DIRECTIVE] vs [OPINION] so the designer knows what is ordered and what is optional
• De-conflicts multi-stakeholder feedback instead of listing contradictions side by side
• Scales to the input — a two-change note stays short; a sprawling review gets the full structure

Install Design Revision Director and try it on your own voice.

Best for

• Consolidating messy, multi-stakeholder feedback into one prioritized change list
• Briefing a remote or offshore designer so they can act without a clarifying call
• De-conflicting contradictory asks — client vs. legal, brand vs. growth — into a clear resolution
• Turning a live design review into a send-ready revision brief

Not for

• Evaluating or critiquing the design for you — it organizes your feedback, it does not form opinions
• Inventing concrete specs (hex codes, pixels, fonts, copy) from a vague “make it pop”
• Shallow in-place text polish — reach for Clarity or Casual Convo instead

How it works

1. Speak your design or creative feedback while reviewing a draft — ramble, relay conflicting stakeholders, correct yourself as you go.
2. Every distinct change becomes one item in a priority-ordered list, most important first, one issue per item.
3. Each item is tagged [DIRECTIVE] (a definite change the designer must make) or [OPINION] (a preference to weigh) so nothing gets over- or under-acted.
4. Contradictory asks are de-conflicted — resolved when you resolved them, surfaced as an open decision when you did not — and keep-as-is items are captured so good work is not “fixed.”

Try saying

• Quick one on the pricing page — the headline font feels too small, bump it up, and make the outline button filled like the first one so they match. The rest is good.
• Marketing wants the hero punchier, but legal says the disclaimer has to be bigger and more prominent — relay both and let the hat surface the conflict.
• Drop the badge — actually, keep it but shrink it — and confirm the brief reflects only the final instruction.

Tips

• Paste the frame into Context / Situation — who the designer is, what artifact is under review, who the decision-maker is — so references and ownership resolve cleanly.
• Just say what each stakeholder wants in your own words; the hat tags, prioritizes, and de-conflicts, so you do not need to pre-organize.
• If an ask is vague (more premium, cleaner), say it anyway — the hat keeps it as an opinion and flags that it needs specifics rather than inventing them.