| name | millman |
| description | Millman lens — Is this person real? Deliberate differentiation, vulnerability matching authority, life-arc coherence. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
Millman Lens — Atomic Skill
Purpose
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.
Usage
/millman # Evaluate full constellation
/millman [page-path] # Evaluate a single page
Context
Read
- All published pages (frontmatter + body):
_governance/, _infrastructure/, _output/, _blog/
- Standalone pages:
bio/index.md, contact.md, colophon.md, thinking.md, vocabulary.md
- Homepage:
_data/index.json + _layouts/systemworks.html
- Screenshots from
.audit/screenshots/ (latest set)
docs/visual-reference-index.md → active reference set- Reference images from active set (for visual context during evaluation)
.audit/rubric.md if it exists — Peter's annotations override defaults
Invoke (as needed)
/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 observations
Lens Criteria (embedded)
The evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.
Verdict Scale
- STRONG — exceeds the test. Genuinely impressive, holds up against best-in-class.
- HOLDS — passes the test. Solid, no meaningful gaps.
- WEAK — substantive gaps that undermine the intent.
- BROKEN — fundamental failure on one or more questions.
Questions
M1. What can only this person do?
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.
M2. Does the vulnerability match the authority?
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.
M3. Best-day self or a character?
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.
M4. Does the constellation tell a life-arc story?
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.
M5. Where is the courage?
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.
Output
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.]
Direction (if not all STRONG)
For each non-passing question, state:
- What specifically is wrong (with evidence from the evaluation)
- What specifically to change (exact change, not "improve X")
- Which files/pages to modify
- What the result should look like after the change
Called By
/audit run — runs in parallel with other lenses/full-pass run — via audit- Standalone — usable anytime
