Menu
Bierut lens — Does the design think? Form follows content, not style. Problem-solving over decoration. Read-only diagnostic.
Instalar com Codex ou Claude Copie este prompt, cole no Codex, Claude ou outro assistente e deixe que ele revise a página da skill e instale para você.
Baseado na classificação ocupacional SOC
Context-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.
| name | bierut |
| description | Bierut lens — Does the design think? Form follows content, not style. Problem-solving over decoration. Read-only diagnostic. |
| user_invocable | true |
Michael Bierut's standard: "I don't like doing design for designers — I like problem-solving." This lens evaluates whether the site's design serves the content and audience, or performs for a design-literate crowd.
Read-only diagnostic. Reports a verdict, never auto-fixes.
/bierut # Evaluate full constellation
/bierut [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 checkThe evaluation questions below ARE this lens's criteria.
Read: site structure, CSS approach (can assess structure, cannot assess visual quality) Evaluate: Does the site's organization make the work accessible to the intended audience? Or does it signal sophistication to a design-literate audience at the expense of clarity? Flag: Structure or terminology that requires design-world literacy to parse.
Read: every project page's opening and frontmatter (context, drift fields) Evaluate: Are constraint, context, and difficulty visible — or just polished deliverables? Does the reader understand what was hard before seeing what was built? Flag: Pages that jump to the solution. Missing context/drift.
Read: all project pages Evaluate: Evidence that Peter engaged deeply with each project's actual domain (jewelry, recruiting, music, narrative, household systems) rather than applying a visual style to interchangeable subjects. Flag: Projects that feel like design applied TO a subject rather than design emerging FROM understanding the subject.
Read: manifesto, bio, project pages Evaluate: Is the narrative accessible to someone outside design/engineering? Could a founder, a hiring manager, a potential client follow the story? Flag: Jargon, insider terminology, unexplained concepts. Note: verify vocabulary tooltips produce visible output — check baseline results. A tooltip mechanism with no visible matches is not sufficient.
Read: all page content as pure text Evaluate: Would the ideas survive without the CSS? Is there an editorial point of view, a structural argument, a way of seeing — or is this content that only works because it looks good? Flag: Pages that are thin on ideas. Content that describes rather than argues.
Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:
# Bierut Lens — "Does the design think?"
## Overall: [STRONG / HOLDS / WEAK / BROKEN]
**B1. Design serving content?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**B2. Problem visible?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**B3. Curiosity beyond design?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**B4. Non-designer accessibility?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
**B5. Point of view without visuals?** — [verdict]
[Evidence.]
For each non-passing question, state:
/audit run — runs in parallel with other lenses/full-pass run — via audit