Print Craft lens — Does it feel printed? Scored against Peter's actual print work as the benchmark. Read-only diagnostic.
The print-craft lens evaluates whether the site achieves the material qualities of a printed artifact — not by abstract principles, but by direct comparison to Peter's actual print work. Each question maps to a specific reference image from the visual reference index.
The benchmark isn't "does this look like print" in general. It's "does this achieve the specific character visible in the Stoicism series, New City posters, P mark, and Aetherwright sigil?" Those pieces define what "printed" means for this site.
Read-only diagnostic. Reports a verdict, never auto-fixes.
/print-craft # Evaluate full site screenshots
/print-craft [page-name] # Evaluate a specific page's screenshot
.audit/screenshots/ (latest set) — REQUIREDdocs/visual-reference-index.md → active reference set.audit/rubric.md if it exists/texture-verify → texture quality check after generation → PRESSED/OVERWORKED/INVISIBLE/COSTUMEThe P1-P7 questions below ARE this lens's criteria. Each maps to a specific reference image.
Before evaluating ANY question below, use the Read tool to view the screenshot images provided in your prompt. Claude can read PNG files — the Read tool returns visual content.
Read each screenshot path provided. Base ALL evaluations on what you SEE in the screenshots, not on source code, CSS, or documentation. If no screenshot paths were provided, state "NO SCREENSHOTS PROVIDED — cannot evaluate" and stop.
Do NOT fall back to reading SCSS, CSS, or HTML files. The evaluation is of the RENDERED output, not the source.
For each screenshot (or the set as a whole), ask:
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/EchoAndBone_MementoMori.jpg — the warm, fibrous paper behind the skull.
Compare the site background against the reference. The background should have:
Score: Does the site surface feel like it has material presence, or does it feel like a CSS color value?
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/aetherwright_sigil.svg — the circle rim with micro-irregular line weight.
Compare the .dossier-rule and other structural lines against the reference. Printed rules should have:
Score: Do the site's horizontal rules feel like ink on paper, or like CSS border: 1px solid?
Reference: All reference images share a consistent material quality within their respective bodies of work.
View 4+ pages. Every page should feel like it came off the same press:
Score: Could you shuffle these pages and they'd all feel like the same publication?
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/New_City_01_web.jpg — the barcode elements with silk-screened edge character.
If the site has distressed or irregular elements, compare against the reference. Authentic distress:
Score: Does the distress feel like it came off a press, or like a Photoshop filter was applied?
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/EchoAndBone_MementoMori.jpg — the paper is there but doesn't compete with the illustration.
Evaluate the grain overlay specifically:
Score: Is the grain like ambient temperature — unnoticed until it's gone?
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/Printshop_cmyk.png — the P mark with visible but controlled plate misalignment.
If the site uses any color separation or misregistration effects (currently in the ink-press SVG filter on display type):
If no misregistration effects exist, note this as a gap (the P mark's most distinctive quality is its crosshatch + CMYK shift).
Score: Does any color misregistration feel like a printing process artifact, or like a glitch effect?
Reference: docs/references/print-artifact/New_City_03_web.jpg — barcodes and registration targets placed compositionally.
Evaluate the .printer-exhaust elements and any crop marks / registration targets:
Score: Do the registration marks feel like they were on the press plate, or like clip art?
Print in conversation. No file changes. Format:
# Print Craft Lens — "Does it feel printed?"
## Overall: [PRESSED / ADEQUATE / DIGITAL]
**P1. Paper substrate?** — [verdict]
[Evidence from screenshots, compared against Stoicism reference]
**P2. Ink edges?** — [verdict]
[Evidence from screenshots, compared against sigil rim reference]
**P3. Press consistency?** — [verdict]
[Cross-page comparison evidence]
**P4. Distress authenticity?** — [verdict]
[Evidence from screenshots, compared against New City reference]
**P5. Paper grain?** — [verdict]
[Grain overlay assessment]
**P6. CMYK misregistration?** — [verdict]
[Display type treatment assessment, compared against P mark reference]
**P7. Registration marks?** — [verdict]
[Printer-exhaust assessment, compared against New City reference]
## The Impression
[One sentence: does this feel like it came off a press, or like it wishes it had?]
## Gaps
[Specific elements that are still DIGITAL and what they need]
For each non-passing question, state:
Claude's visual assessment, not expert critique. Useful as structured feedback against specific references, not authoritative judgment. Peter's eye is the final arbiter.
/design-review coordinator — runs in parallel with other visual lenses/texture audit — provides the baseline verdict/texture pass — Phase 1 (before) and Phase 4 (after) comparison