Let AI draft it. You judge it.
Every UX team now uses AI somewhere in this process. What separates a good UX designer from someone copy-pasting AI output isn’t whether they use it — it’s whether they can tell a good result from a bad one. This template turns what you have made so far into a short case-study fragment, with AI drafting and you editing.
Use it with ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini — any of them work at this level, and all have a free tier.
The prompt.
Copy the text below, replace the three bracketed sections with what you made in the earlier exercises, and paste the whole thing into your AI tool of choice.
I have been working through a set of beginner UX exercises. Here is what I produced: 1. A heuristic critique of an app -- what I found wrong, and what I would change: [paste your heuristic critique here] 2. A redesigned screen -- describe what you changed and why: [describe your wireframe change here] 3. A one-page research plan -- what I would ask, who I would talk to, and how: [paste your research plan here] Using only what I have given you above, draft a short (150-250 word) case-study-style writeup structured as: - The problem I noticed - What I found (referencing the heuristic critique) - What I changed (referencing the wireframe) - What I would test next (referencing the research plan) Write it in first person, plainly, with no invented details, no invented metrics, and no claims I have not given you. Flag anywhere you had to guess or fill a gap, rather than inventing something that sounds plausible.
Read the output like a critic, not a customer.
The exercise is about judging and editing what comes back, not accepting it. Ask yourself:
Rewrite anything that sounds generic in your own words. What you end up with — 150 to 250 words — is a real seed of a portfolio case study: drafted faster because of AI, true because you edited it.
Want a second opinion on what you wrote?
No pitch, no obligation — bring your writeup, even a screenshot, and we’ll give you a straight answer on what is next.