Architectural critique with Claude: ground each finding in the project

Review a project with Design Critic →

A useful critique helps decide what to investigate next. Saying “the project lacks coherence” offers little guidance unless it points to something in the drawing. Design Critic organizes its reading around visible evidence and the designer's stated intent.

Choose documents that support an answer

Attach a drawing, section or image with its revision and design stage. Include the brief and intent: what relationship between spaces is the project pursuing? An exterior view cannot establish all internal circulation. Ask for limitations of the available documents to remain explicit.

Turn axes into findings

The pack proposes six axes: concept, scale, circulation, materiality, context and ambition versus feasibility. It prioritizes two to four supported findings rather than scoring every axis. Silence on a topic does not mean approval of that topic.

Each finding connects an axis, a visible feature, its consequence and a question to test. Tone changes wording, not evidence. A harsher critique must not become more certain about an unknown dimension.

A reading example to check

Fictional example: the brief calls for a calm entrance while the supplied plan shows a service route crossing it. The useful question concerns whether the flows remain compatible during deliveries. This does not justify inventing a code dimension or automatically moving a partition.

Without a supplied plan, the example illustrates the method rather than diagnosing a project. Locate the described crossing in your document and check that the brief actually seeks that entrance quality.

Turn critique into further study

Keep a short list of selected questions and the documents needed to answer them. The pack does not perform code, structural or cost checks. Feasibility comments are subjects for investigation. To frame the next request, use the brief-to-prompt method.