peers

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