| name | appleton |
| description | Appleton lens — Is the knowledge alive? Digital garden patterns applied to a professional portfolio. Connections, growth, epistemic disclosure. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
Appleton Lens — Atomic Skill
Purpose
Maggie Appleton's digital garden patterns: topography over timelines, continuous growth, epistemic disclosure, independent ownership. This lens evaluates whether the portfolio is a living document with visible thinking, or a frozen showcase.
Read-only diagnostic. Reports a verdict, never auto-fixes.
Usage
/appleton # Evaluate full constellation
/appleton [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
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
A1. Are ideas connected by meaning or only by category?
Read: all page cross-references, navigation structure
Evaluate: Can you trace how thinking in one project informed another? Does governance reference infrastructure? Do output projects feed back into governance? Or do projects sit in isolated category buckets?
Flag: Isolated projects with no visible conceptual links to other work.
A2. Can I tell what's finished vs. in progress vs. rough?
Read: all project frontmatter (fidelity field, status indicators)
Evaluate: Are development stages honestly signaled? Does the site distinguish between shipped work, active development, and early exploration?
Flag: Everything presented at the same level of authority regardless of actual stage. Misleading status claims.
A3. Does the structure reflect how this person thinks?
Read: navigation, tier system, vocabulary, altitude system
Evaluate: Is the 3-tier architecture (governance/infrastructure/output) a genuine mental model unique to this person? Or is it a conventional portfolio (about/work/contact) with different labels?
Flag: Architecture that could be copy-pasted to any other portfolio without changing the organizing logic.
A4. Is there visible growth and revision?
Read: last_modified dates, content that references evolution
Evaluate: Evidence that the site is a living document — recent updates, content that has visibly evolved, ideas developed in public.
Flag: A portfolio that appears frozen. Stale last_modified dates. No evidence of ongoing development.
A5. Can I navigate by curiosity?
Read: navigation, cross-links, page structure
Evaluate: Can you follow a conceptual thread (governance, drift, scaffolding, constraint) across multiple projects? Or are you forced through a linear hierarchy?
Verify vocabulary tooltip visibility: if baseline results show fewer than 6/9 terms matching, tooltips cannot be cited as a curiosity navigation mechanism.
Flag: No lateral connections. Navigation only by category, never by concept.
Output
Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:
# Appleton Lens — "Is the knowledge alive?"
## Overall: [STRONG / HOLDS / WEAK / BROKEN]
**A1. Connected by meaning?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**A2. Development stages visible?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**A3. Structure reflects thinking?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**A4. Visible growth?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**A5. Navigate by curiosity?** — [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
