القائمة
Peer Benchmark lens — Where does this stand? Compares portfolio against established practitioners across 5 dimensions. 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 | peers |
| description | Peer Benchmark lens — Where does this stand? Compares portfolio against established practitioners across 5 dimensions. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
External comparison against established practitioners at a comparable career stage (20+ years, cross-domain, public presence). Most senior professionals have LinkedIn only (~35%) or nothing (~30%). A custom site with case studies puts you in the top ~5%. This lens compares against the top ~1%.
Read-only diagnostic. Reports a verdict, never auto-fixes.
/peers # Evaluate full constellation against peer set
_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/discoverability → SEO and presence signals → STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK (for PB5 distribution)The evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.
| Peer | Site | Known For |
|---|---|---|
| Brad Frost | bradfrost.com | Atomic Design methodology, blog, courses |
| Dan Abramov | overreacted.io | React core team, pure technical blog |
| Sara Soueidan | sarasoueidan.com | Accessibility, blog, 8K+ newsletter |
| Maggie Appleton | maggieappleton.com | Digital garden, cross-linking, content maturity markers |
| Frank Chimero | frankchimero.com | The Shape of Design, essays, named clients |
| Jessica Hische | jessicahische.is | Visual portfolio organized by type, commercial clients |
| Ethan Marcotte | ethanmarcotte.com | Responsive Web Design, journal, colophon, books |
| Will Larson | lethain.com | StaffEng, 15+ years of engineering leadership blog |
Evaluate against comparison set: case studies, taxonomy, structured data (JSON-LD), cross-linking, vocabulary/glossary system, metadata framework.
Evaluate: screenshots, diagrams, work samples, before/afters relative to claims made on the site. Compare against Jessica Hische (image-rich portfolio), Brad Frost (book covers, speaking photos), Frank Chimero (project imagery).
Evaluate: blog post count and cadence, sustained public thinking over time. Compare against Dan Abramov (hundreds of posts), Will Larson (15+ years), Brad Frost (decade+ of blogging), Sara Soueidan (newsletter + blog).
Evaluate: testimonials, named clients, audience metrics (newsletter subscribers, social following), speaking engagements. Compare against Frank Chimero (named clients: NPR, Wikipedia), Jessica Hische (commercial client logos), Sara Soueidan (8,300+ subscribers).
Evaluate: external properties (spoke domains, syndication), newsletter, content on third-party platforms (Dev.to, LinkedIn articles, Are.na), GitHub presence as distribution channel. Compare against Brad Frost (course platform, book site), Ethan Marcotte (multiple book sites), Maggie Appleton (newsletter, Are.na).
Weighting: Structural completeness and visual evidence highest (what a visitor sees), then social proof and public output (credibility signals), then distribution (growth channel).
Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:
# Peer Benchmark — "Where does this stand?"
## Overall: [STRONG / HOLDS / WEAK / BROKEN]
**PB1. Structural Completeness** — [verdict]
[What the site has that peers don't. What peers have that the site doesn't.]
**PB2. Visual Evidence** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**PB3. Public Output** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**PB4. Social Proof** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**PB5. Distribution Reach** — [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.