I would not order this board yet. The architecture is reasonable, but I found several items that should be fixed or explicitly verified before fabrication.

The biggest issue is the 24 V bus transient protection. The board uses two 100 µF / 35 V electrolytics on VM, while the TVS is an SMBJ33A. That TVS does not begin breakdown until roughly 36.7 V and can clamp near 53 V during a large surge. That means the 35 V capacitors can be subjected to voltage beyond their rating before the TVS meaningfully protects them. This is especially important on a BLDC controller because regenerative braking can push the DC bus upward. I would either move to suitably rated 50 V capacitors and review the complete transient envelope, or redesign the clamp/braking strategy.

The high-current grounding/routing also needs work. The design defines highCurrentTrace and motorTrace as 1.5 mm, but generic groundTrace is only 0.2 mm. Several important current-return connections use that ground trace, including each phase shunt-to-GND connection and the input connector return. The GND copper pours may help substantially, but for a motor inverter I would not rely on a generic autorouted 0.2 mm path or an uncontrolled pour connection. The MOSFET → shunt → bulk-capacitor return loops should be deliberately designed as short, wide copper regions, preferably with both layers stitched together aggressively.

The project itself confirms this concern: it says routing still needs to pass PCB DRC and that high-current motor/bus routing and thermal behavior still require manual review. For a BLDC inverter, placement alone is not enough—the half-bridge commutation loops and gate-drive loops are critical.

There is also a protection limitation with the INA240 bus-current monitor. Both REF pins are tied to GND, so the amplifier is configured essentially for unidirectional positive-current measurement. INA240 supports bidirectional sensing when its reference is appropriately biased. With the present arrangement, regenerative bus current cannot be measured properly below zero. For a controller where braking/regeneration is possible, I would bias the INA240 output around approximately mid-ADC range, or explicitly decide that regenerative current measurement is unnecessary.

The MOSFET and gate-driver voltage ratings themselves are sensible for a 12–24 V nominal controller. DRV8323 supports operation up to 60 V, and the CSD18540Q5B MOSFET is also 60 V rated. However, that does not mean you should allow the bus anywhere close to 60 V. You want substantial switching-spike margin below the MOSFET absolute maximum.

The phase-current shunt topology looks electrically sensible. Each low-side MOSFET source feeds a 5 mΩ shunt, and the DRV8323 CSA inputs are taken through separate Kelvin-style connections. That's the right general approach. The VDS hardware protection is deliberately set to the lowest threshold, while normal current limiting is intended to be performed using the ADC current measurements. That strategy is fine as long as firmware implements fast current shutdown correctly.

The gate-enable safety logic also makes sense: the MCU enable is ANDed with the TMP102 active-low alert, so a temperature fault pulls the DRV8323 ENABLE low independently of firmware. I don't see a logical error there.

The 5 V buck section is conceptually fine. The LMR16020 supports up to 60 V input and 2 A output, so it's appropriate for creating the logic rail from a 12–24 V bus. The 56.2 kΩ / 10 kΩ feedback divider is consistent with approximately a 5 V target. Still, switching-node layout, diode/inductor loop placement, and the exact inductor/output-capacitor operating conditions should be checked against the TI design procedure rather than trusting autorouting.

One other practical weakness is that this is only a 2-layer PCB. A 5 A-class BLDC controller can absolutely be made on two layers, but it makes power-loop inductance, thermal spreading, analog current sensing, and ground separation much less forgiving. For a prototype it is possible, but the power-stage copper needs to look much more like polygons/planes than ordinary PCB traces.

Conclusion

Status: DO NOT ORDER yet.

The schematic is broadly well designed, and I don't see something like reversed MOSFETs or an obviously broken DRV8323 topology. But I consider these pre-order blockers:

Change/reconsider the 35 V VM capacitors versus the SMBJ33A clamp. This is the strongest electrical issue I found.
Manually design the high-current GND/VM/U/V/W paths. Do not leave the power stage to generic 1.5 mm/0.2 mm autoroutes.
Complete PCB DRC and inspect every unrouted/poorly routed connection.
Review regenerative-energy handling. A TVS alone may not be enough depending on motor inertia and supply type.
Decide whether bus-current sensing must measure regeneration. If yes, bias the INA240 reference instead of grounding both REF pins.
Verify gate-driver loop placement, MOSFET thermal copper, shunt Kelvin routing, connector/fuse current ratings and buck switching layout before manufacturing.

If those are corrected, then I would be comfortable ordering a small prototype batch such as 2–5 boards, not a production quantity.