Engineering Design Review

4 weeks · 0 milestones

Conduct a formal engineering design review of a real software design — either as author defending your own design, or as a reviewer leading the review of a peer's design. The review must follow a structured format: design document distributed at least 48 hours before the review, a written review checklist with specific questions prepared in advance, the review session with documented findings (issues, action items, and their severity), and a revision record showing what changed as a result of the review. Preferred proof: a design review in a professional or team context. Accessible alternative: a peer design review conducted with at least 2 qualified reviewers from an open-source project community, a university engineering programme, or a professional network — the design reviewed must be non-trivial (an architectural decision, a data model, or a protocol specification, not a single function). Proof artifacts: the review checklist and findings (analysis artifact) and the revision record documenting what changed and why (documentation artifact). Verification: one of the reviewers confirms the review was substantive — not rubber-stamping — and at least one finding resulted in a real change to the design.

Sign in to start this outcome and track your progress publicly.