القائمة
Millman lens — Is this person real? Deliberate differentiation, vulnerability matching authority, life-arc coherence. Read-only diagnostic.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | millman |
| description | Millman lens — Is this person real? Deliberate differentiation, vulnerability matching authority, life-arc coherence. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
Debbie Millman's core test: "If you're not creating something that's different from everything else, why do you need it?" This lens evaluates whether the portfolio reveals a real person with real stakes, or a professional template with a name on it.
Read-only diagnostic. Reports a verdict, never auto-fixes.
/millman # Evaluate full constellation
/millman [page-path] # Evaluate a single page
_governance/, _infrastructure/, _output/, _blog/bio/index.md, contact.md, colophon.md, thinking.md, vocabulary.md_data/index.json + _layouts/systemworks.html.audit/screenshots/ (latest set)docs/visual-reference-index.md → active reference set.audit/rubric.md if it exists — Peter's annotations override defaults/knowledge → search ideation history for grounding → source-attributed results/baseline → mechanical health facts (link status, image status) → pass/fail per check/voice-sample → Peter's actual speaking patterns → rhythm, vocabulary, humor observationsThe evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.
Read: manifesto (_data/index.json), bio, all project pages
Evaluate: Is the positioning genuinely distinct? Could you swap in twenty other names? Look for specifics that anchor the identity to this person's actual history.
Flag: Generic claims. Positioning that describes a category, not a person.
Read: all project pages, bio Evaluate: Are failures, struggles, and what broke shown alongside what worked? Is difficulty shown through what it took (iterations, what broke) rather than claimed? Flag: Pages that present only polished success. Claims of difficulty without evidence.
Read: manifesto, bio, voice across all pages Evaluate: Does the voice sound like a real person with real stakes, or like a brand strategy document? Is there a gap between the stated philosophy and how the site actually reads? Flag: Corporate voice. Philosophy that sounds scripted rather than believed.
Read: all published pages in order (governance → infrastructure → output), bio, blog posts Evaluate: Can you see one person's specific obsessions producing all of this? Is there a throughline from the earliest work to the most recent? Flag: Projects that feel disconnected from the central identity. Gaps in the narrative.
Read: all project pages, output section especially Evaluate: Evidence of risk-taking — projects started before knowing they'd succeed, work made public while still developing, unconventional approaches. Flag: A portfolio that only shows safe, completed, validated work.
Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:
# Millman Lens — "Is this person real?"
## Overall: [STRONG / HOLDS / WEAK / BROKEN]
**M1. What can only this person do?** — [verdict]
[Evidence. Specific pages cited.]
**M2. Vulnerability matches authority?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**M3. Best-day self or a character?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**M4. Life-arc story?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**M5. Where is the courage?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
For each non-passing question, state:
/audit run — runs in parallel with other lenses/full-pass run — via auditContext-aware story extraction. Loads the maker's full context — identity, expertise, voice, published work — then reads the narrative architecture to understand the story being told and what's missing. Interviews the maker to fill gaps with real moments. Modular: works with any project.
Evaluate the IP constellation — dispatches baseline checks, then 9 lenses in parallel (Millman, Bierut, Appleton, Shaw, Peers, Victore, The Walk, The Walls). Coordinator skill.
Cross-page coherence. Do the three tiers form a coherent argument when read as a sequence? Read-only diagnostic.
Baseline checks — mechanical health of the constellation. Links, images, cross-refs, attribution, voice violations, SEO, tooltips. Read-only diagnostic.
Where lenses agree and disagree. Maps consensus vs. contradiction across audit results. Read-only diagnostic.
Copy verification checklist — 13-item pass/fail check on draft or published copy. Voice rules, grounding, Shaw check, steward voice. Read-only diagnostic.