Is there a Figma plugin?

No, and there is no Figma integration of any kind. To review a Figma design in Writhink, export the frames as images or a PDF and upload them, or review the built page at its staging URL. The comments then live in Writhink as a work list rather than inside the design file.

A stakeholder came back a week after the round closed. Now what?

Their notes land as open comments in the same project, next to the resolved ones. The items they are re-raising already carry your reply and a screenshot, and the genuinely new ones are visibly new, which is the argument you need when you explain that this is round two.

How do I run a second round on a changed design?

Keep the same project. Old comments carry their statuses, so what was settled stays visibly settled and new pins land alongside them. If the artefact is an uploaded file that changed, upload the new version: Writhink does not track versions of a design file or diff one against another.

Can I keep one reviewer's comments private from another?

Not inside a single review. Everyone with the link reads the whole thread, replies included, which is deliberate: it is what stops the same answer being written five times. If two audiences must not see each other, give each one its own project and its own link.

Does the AI decide between conflicting requests?

No. It merges duplicates and groups comments by page and by element, so opposing requests on the same element sit next to each other where a person can see them. Anything genuinely ambiguous is flagged as unclear and left for the client to answer.

How many stakeholders should be on the link?

Technically as many as you like, since reviewers need no account and no seat. Practically, invite everyone whose approval you need and nobody whose approval you do not, because every extra opinion on the link is another comment you have to answer in public.

Website feedback

Five reviewers, five opinions, one decision

A design review rarely breaks on the design. It breaks on the people around it: feedback arriving through five channels, two stakeholders asking for opposite things, and the one person whose approval you actually need replying four days after the round closed. Writhink puts every comment on the exact spot it refers to, in one thread everyone can read, which makes the disagreements visible early enough to settle them.

Start for free

No credit card. Your client doesn’t need an account.

The comments are not the problem. Where they land is.

You send a design to five people. One replies by email with a screenshot pasted into a document. One writes three messages in a chat thread over two days. One phones you. One says it looks great and then changes their mind in the next meeting. The fifth is the person who has to approve it, and their note reads the header feels off.

None of that is a difficult design problem. It is a bookkeeping problem, and it costs you a round. You spend an afternoon matching vague sentences to specific elements, you guess at two of them, and the two you guessed come back in the next round with the word again attached.

Writhink fixes the collection step. Each comment is attached to the element or the region it is about, carries a screenshot and the screen size it was seen at, and sits in a thread every reviewer can read. Five channels become one list, and the list is the same object your developer works from later.

Your design tool's comments, or Writhink

Keep the discussion in your design tool when

The reviewers are designers who already have an account and know their way around the canvas.
The feedback is about layers, spacing, components and states rather than the result.
The file is still moving under everyone's feet and you want comments to travel with the frames.
The people commenting are on the same team and nobody has to be invited by name.

Move the round into Writhink when

The reviewers are clients and stakeholders who do not have a design tool account and are not going to get one.
What they should be judging is the thing the customer will see: a built page, an exported screen, a PDF.
Reviewers should read and answer each other without a licence or an invite, so the same question is not asked three times.
The round has to end as a work list you can hand to whoever implements it, or paste into an AI coding tool.
You need a record of who asked for what, six weeks later, when someone says they never approved that.

How to end a round with a decision

The tooling part takes a minute. These are the five habits that decide whether the round produces a build list or a second meeting.

Step 1
Name the decision maker out loud, before the link goes out
Say in the message who has the final call. Not to flatter anyone: pinned comments make disagreement legible within an hour, and that only helps if somebody has the authority to close it. Reviews with five equal opinions and no owner do not converge, whatever tool you run them in.
Step 2
Give the round an end date, and one round at a time
A round without a deadline is a mailing list. Say the date, and say what you want judged in this round: the layout now, the copy next time. Reviewers asked to look at everything comment on the easiest thing to have an opinion about, which is usually the colour of a button.
Step 3
Ask for pins, not descriptions
A reviewer clicks the element and writes the note there. Two people commenting on the same button end up on the same pin, which is how you learn they disagree before you have built anything on top of it.
Step 4
Answer in public, on the pin
Reply where the comment lives. Everyone on the link reads the answer, so the marketing lead sees what the founder asked for and you stop writing the same explanation four times in four inboxes.
Step 5
Close the round by naming what is still open
Anything unresolved when the deadline passes is either a decision nobody has made or a question the client never answered. Send those back as questions, in writing, before you start the next round. A round that ends quietly ends with you guessing.

When two reviewers want opposite things

Grouping by element is what makes conflict visible early. The founder says make the headline bigger, the marketing lead says the headline is too loud. Both comments sit on the same pin, in the same thread, where both people can see the other one. That is often enough on its own: the disagreement gets settled between them instead of arriving on your desk as two contradictory tasks in the same week.

Writhink does not decide for you, and it will not pretend a conflict is a single merged request. The AI pass merges duplicates, meaning the same comment said twice, not two comments pulling in opposite directions. Whatever it cannot resolve stays flagged as unclear, and the generated prompt ends by asking for draft replies to those, so you leave the round with the questions already written.

When a conflict does reach you, put the trade-off back to the decision maker in one sentence with both pins attached, rather than picking a side quietly. Choosing without asking is how you end up rebuilding the same section twice, once for each stakeholder, and being paid for neither.

The reviewer who replies last

Every agency has one: the stakeholder who was on holiday, or was not copied in, and who arrives after the round closed with a page of notes on decisions everyone else made a week ago. Half of those notes are already resolved comments with a reply and a screenshot underneath them, which is the cheapest possible answer to what happened to my feedback.

The other half are new. They land as open comments in the same project, alongside the resolved ones, which is exactly what you want when you have to explain that they are round two and priced accordingly. Nothing is lost and nothing is silently absorbed into work that was already signed off.

The structural fix is the invitation, not the software. Send the link to the late reviewer at the same time as everyone else, even if you are sure they will not open it, and name the deadline. A review link needs no account and no seat, so there is no reason to leave anyone off it, and no excuse available afterwards.

Writhink is not a Figma plugin

It does not live inside a design tool. There is no Figma plugin and no integration with Figma, Framer, Sketch or anything similar — no native integration with any third-party product exists. You review what a reviewer can open in a browser: a live page or staging URL through a share link, a page behind a login through the Chrome extension, or exported screens and PDFs uploaded to the project. If what you want is comments on layers inside your canvas, use the canvas.

It does not version your design files either. A second round on a changed mockup means uploading the new export, not a diff of the old one. No handoff specs, no redlines, no measurements, no design tokens, no recording of a reviewer's screen, and no ticket sync into Jira or Linear.

What it does have is the piece that usually goes missing between the design and the build: every stakeholder comment, tied to the exact element, in one list, with the argument that produced it still readable underneath.

Before you count on it

One caveat on PDFs and image sets: that side is fully built, but it has had far less real use than website review. Treat it as a capability rather than a proven workflow.

Writhink is in open beta: everything described here is available and free, no credit card. Paid plans are announced but not purchasable yet. The one limit that applies today is five AI prompt generations a month per organization.

FAQ

Questions people actually ask

Is there a Figma plugin?: No, and there is no Figma integration of any kind. To review a Figma design in Writhink, export the frames as images or a PDF and upload them, or review the built page at its staging URL. The comments then live in Writhink as a work list rather than inside the design file.
A stakeholder came back a week after the round closed. Now what?: Their notes land as open comments in the same project, next to the resolved ones. The items they are re-raising already carry your reply and a screenshot, and the genuinely new ones are visibly new, which is the argument you need when you explain that this is round two.
How do I run a second round on a changed design?: Keep the same project. Old comments carry their statuses, so what was settled stays visibly settled and new pins land alongside them. If the artefact is an uploaded file that changed, upload the new version: Writhink does not track versions of a design file or diff one against another.
Can I keep one reviewer's comments private from another?: Not inside a single review. Everyone with the link reads the whole thread, replies included, which is deliberate: it is what stops the same answer being written five times. If two audiences must not see each other, give each one its own project and its own link.
Does the AI decide between conflicting requests?: No. It merges duplicates and groups comments by page and by element, so opposing requests on the same element sit next to each other where a person can see them. Anything genuinely ambiguous is flagged as unclear and left for the client to answer.
How many stakeholders should be on the link?: Technically as many as you like, since reviewers need no account and no seat. Practically, invite everyone whose approval you need and nobody whose approval you do not, because every extra opinion on the link is another comment you have to answer in public.

Start

Send one link. Get feedback you can build from.

Your clients comment right on the page — no account, no screenshots, no voice notes. Writhink sorts the comments and writes the prompt for your AI.