millman

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