| name | peers |
| description | Peer Benchmark lens — Where does this stand? Compares portfolio against established practitioners across 5 dimensions. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
Peer Benchmark Lens — Atomic Skill
Purpose
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.
Usage
/peers # Evaluate full constellation against peer set
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/discoverability → SEO and presence signals → STRONG/ADEQUATE/WEAK (for PB5 distribution)
Lens Criteria (embedded)
The evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.
Comparison Set
| 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 |
Verdict Scale
- STRONG — has elements no one in comparison set has
- HOLDS — comparable to the best in comparison set
- WEAK — missing elements most peers have
- BROKEN — below the baseline of a professional site
Dimensions
PB1. Structural Completeness
Evaluate against comparison set: case studies, taxonomy, structured data (JSON-LD), cross-linking, vocabulary/glossary system, metadata framework.
PB2. Visual Evidence
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).
PB3. Public Output
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).
PB4. Social Proof
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).
PB5. Distribution Reach
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).
Output
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.]
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
