UX portfolio review checklist

How to use this

The review framework is operational. The candidate works through the six sections in order, scoring each section out of 5 honestly. Total out of 30. The score tells the candidate whether the portfolio is ready to submit and which sections need attention.

The framework is designed for use by the candidate on their own portfolio, by a peer reviewing a friend's portfolio, or by a hiring manager reviewing a candidate's portfolio before deciding on an interview. The framing of the questions is deliberately diagnostic — "is it working?" rather than "is it there?".

This pairs with the portfolio checklist, which is a completeness pass; this is an effectiveness pass. Run the checklist first to confirm everything is present, then run this review to confirm everything is working. The pillar reference behind both is UX portfolio examples and the broader portfolio guide.

1. Homepage review (out of 5)

The homepage is where the recruiter screen lives. The diagnostic test: a recruiter with 30 seconds of attention can see name, seniority signal, named companies, and at least one case study card.

Score 5: above the fold contains name, role, seniority signal, three to five case study cards with named companies, contact visible. No mission statement filler. No animated intro. Recruiter can complete the screen without scrolling.

Score 4: most of the above; one element missing or weak (e.g., contact in footer rather than above the fold).

Score 3: case studies present but companies not named on the homepage; recruiter needs to click into case studies to see signal.

Score 2: hero section dominated by mission statement or animated intro; case studies require scrolling.

Score 1: no clear seniority signal, no named companies on the homepage, no case study cards visible above the fold.

The full deep-dive on homepage patterns is in portfolio homepage examples.

2. Navigation review (out of 5)

The navigation is what the recruiter or hiring manager touches to get from the homepage to deeper material. The diagnostic test: every link works, the destinations make sense, the user can always tell where they are.

Score 5: navigation has at most 4–6 items, each labelled clearly, all links functional. Breadcrumbs or visual hierarchy makes the current page obvious. Logo links home. Contact accessible from every page.

Score 4: most of the above; one minor friction point (e.g., labels slightly cryptic but functional).

Score 3: navigation works but has 8+ items, or some labels are unclear.

Score 2: navigation has broken links, missing labels, or visible inconsistencies.

Score 1: navigation actively impedes the reader.

3. Case study review (out of 5)

The case study review is the most diagnostic. Score the case studies as a set, not individually — the consistency matters as much as any single piece.

Score 5: 3–5 case studies of comparable depth (5–8 minutes each). Each opens with a hero summary naming company, role, problem, outcome. Each has a decisions section with two or three explicit decisions, alternatives considered, trade-offs accepted. Each has honest outcomes. Each ends with a specific reflection.

Score 4: most of the above; one case study weaker than the others, or one structural element thin across the set.

Score 3: case studies present but uneven; some lack decisions sections, hero summaries are generic, or outcomes are inflated.

Score 2: case studies dominated by process narration; few visible decisions; weak outcomes; bootcamp template signal present.

Score 1: case studies missing or thin; reviewer cannot tell what the candidate decided.

For the operational deep-dive, see case study examples and the strong vs weak comparison in case study before and after. The case study template is the reusable structure.

4. Presentation review (out of 5)

Presentation covers the visual craft: typography, hierarchy, image quality, restraint. The diagnostic test: does the visual presentation support the content or compete with it?

Score 5: clean typography (consistent face, restrained scale, legible body 16px+). Strong visual hierarchy. Real product screenshots over mockups. Minimal decorative elements. Whitespace generous. Accessibility basics met (WCAG 2.2 AA contrast minimum).

Score 4: most of the above; one minor visual issue (e.g., one case study image low resolution).

Score 3: presentation acceptable but unremarkable; some inconsistencies in type or spacing.

Score 2: presentation has visible problems: low-contrast text, illegible body size, inconsistent typography, weak imagery.

Score 1: presentation actively damages credibility.

5. Mobile review (out of 5)

Mobile review is the most underrated section. Recruiters increasingly review portfolios on phones during commutes; portfolios that fail mobile silently lose interviews. The diagnostic test: open the portfolio on a phone and complete the recruiter scan.

Score 5: portfolio renders cleanly on mobile. Homepage above the fold makes sense at 375px width. Case study hero images zoom-friendly. Body text readable without horizontal scroll. Navigation collapses to a usable mobile menu. Forms (contact) work on touch.

Score 4: most of the above; one minor mobile friction.

Score 3: mobile rendering works but with visible compromises (text small, images cropped).

Score 2: mobile rendering has functional issues (horizontal scroll, broken navigation, illegible text).

Score 1: mobile rendering is broken.

6. Credibility review (out of 5)

Credibility covers everything that affects whether the reader trusts the portfolio. The diagnostic test: can a sceptical reader verify the candidate's claims?

Score 5: named companies (verifiable). Honest outcomes (no inflated metrics). Reflection sections that acknowledge what didn't work. Visible "what I did vs what the team did" clarity. About page that's specific and credible. Personal domain (e.g., sarahchen.com) rather than free subdomain. Stable hosting (no broken images, no expired SSL).

Score 4: most of the above; one minor credibility friction (e.g., one anonymised case study could be specific).

Score 3: most case studies credible but at least one has inflated metrics or PR-speak.

Score 2: visible credibility issues across multiple case studies.

Score 1: credibility actively damaged by inflated claims, PR-speak, or unverifiable assertions.

The scoring framework

Getting external review

Self-review is necessary but not sufficient. The candidate cannot see what the candidate cannot see. External review — by a peer, a friend in the discipline, or a paid reviewer — catches the things the structured framework still misses.

Two external review options work consistently:

Peer review. Find a senior practitioner in your network and ask for 30 minutes of their time. Most senior practitioners will say yes if asked specifically and warmly. The downside is response rate is variable.

Paid review. Independent reviewers on Fiverr offer written portfolio reviews at a range of price points and turnaround speeds. The advantage is reliability — a paid review will arrive when promised. The variable is quality, which depends on the reviewer's actual UX experience.

The pairing that works for serious senior submissions: self-review using this framework, then peer review from one trusted contact, then a paid second-opinion review before submitting.

For the broader career context, see how to get your first UX job for early-career candidates and how to become a UX designer in 2026 for the modern industry view. For salary expectations linked to portfolio quality, see UX designer salary UK. For what comes next after the portfolio review, see interview preparation guide and salary negotiation guide.

Frequently asked questions