bierut

name	bierut
description	Bierut lens — Does the design think? Form follows content, not style. Problem-solving over decoration. Read-only diagnostic.
user_invocable	true

Bierut Lens — Atomic Skill

Purpose

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.

Usage

/bierut                    # Evaluate full constellation
/bierut [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

B1. Is design serving content or performing for designers?

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.

B2. Can I see the problem, not just the solution?

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.

B3. Does this show curiosity beyond design?

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.

B4. Would a non-designer understand and care?

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.

B5. Strip the visual treatment — is there still a point of view?

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.

Output

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.]

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