Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
176 lines (132 loc) · 12.1 KB

File metadata and controls

176 lines (132 loc) · 12.1 KB

hallmark study — three worked examples

How study reads a screenshot the user admires, returns a diagnosis, and (optionally) rebuilds the user's content with the extracted DNA. Each worked example below shows: what the user pasted · what the skill names · what it refuses to do · what it produces.

The whole point of study: extract structural DNA (macrostructure + archetypes + type-pairing role + colour anchor + rhythm), never pixels. If the user wants a 1:1 copy, they want a different tool. Hallmark hands them a diagnosis and lets them keep the bones.


Example A · A Pentagram-style editorial portfolio

What the user pastes: a screenshot of a New York studio's portfolio site — large italic-serif name in the top-left margin, numbered project list flowing down the page, generous warm-cream paper, a single warm-orange accent on the active project, a hairline rule between rows. (User says: "I want my portfolio to feel like this.")

Refuse-or-proceed check

Public reference for inspiration → proceed. (Refusal heuristics fire on: paid-template-marketplace listings, copy-protected portfolios. None match.)

Diagnosis report (what study returns first)

Macrostructure: Specimen (numbered left-margin labels + huge italic serif + asymmetric spans + typographic-only CTA).

Hero archetype: H4 Margin-Number Display — the page's only anchor is a vertical column of two-digit indices.

Pitch archetype: none. The work is the pitch.

Footer archetype: Ft1 Single-Line Colophon — studio name, year, contact, three links, no nav.

Display family role: italic editorial serif (high optical size, soft axis, ink-black). Body family role: geometric sans (humanist Inter-Tight-or-similar at 350-400 weight). Two free candidates: Fraunces italic display + Geist body. One paid candidate the user might confirm: Tiempos Headline + Söhne. The skill names roles, not exact font IDs — visual font ID is unreliable.

Surface lightness band: light (paper L ≈ 96%). Slight warm tint at hue 80 — Pentagram-warm cream, not stark white.

Accent hue band + chroma: warm-orange ~25-30°, low chroma (≤ 0.13), used at < 5% of viewport. One accent, applied to active state and the one number the brand wants the visitor to remember.

Density verdict: sparse. ~3-4 macro elements on the first viewport. Generous vertical margin between rows (≥ --space-3xl).

Type-pairing role: italic-display + sans-body — the canonical editorial pairing.

Two anti-patterns the screenshot has that you should NOT carry over:

  1. The hover-state on the number-label uses a slow ease-in-out 800 ms colour fade. Per microinteractions.md § The timing canon, hover state should be 150–200 ms. Carry the idea (colour-shift on hover); shorten the duration.
  2. The footer text is set at 11 px with 0.06em tracking — under the 14 px floor for body copy. Bump to 12-13 px on rebuild, keep the tracking.

Confirmation question

"Adopt this DNA wholesale, or change one axis? For example, I could keep the macrostructure (Specimen) but pick a theme that better matches your work — if your tone is more ink-blue and B2B, I'd suggest Plain (pure-white paper) instead of the warm-cream Specimen theme."

What study builds when the user says "go"

Macrostructure stamp:

/* Hallmark · macrostructure: Specimen · H4 hero knobs: number-column=margin, alignment=left-bias
 * theme: Specimen · accent: warm-orange ~3% · enrichment: none
 * studied: yes · DNA-source: user reference · paid-fonts: not confirmed (free pairing applied)
 */

Output: the user's actual portfolio entries arranged in a numbered-margin column with italic-Fraunces titles and Geist-body summaries. Hover delays shortened to 200 ms. Footer text bumped to 12 px. The bones come from the screenshot; the words and projects come from the user.


Example B · A Klim-Type-Foundry-leaning specimen

What the user pastes: a screenshot of a type-specimen page — full-bleed black paper, single huge geometric-sans display character ("R") tilted -2°, a ruled grid behind it, a footer-band with the typeface name, weight, OpenType features, and a tiny set of glyph callouts. (User says: "This is the energy I want for our agency rebrand.")

Refuse-or-proceed check

Type specimens are typically published references; proceed. (If the screenshot were a paid font foundry's marketing page with an explicit "preview is licensed" watermark, the skill would refuse and ask the user to bring an unconfirmed reference.)

Diagnosis report

Macrostructure: Type Specimen (single character or word centred + ruled grid + footer-band of metadata).

Hero archetype: H9 Single-Glyph — the entire above-the-fold is one letterform.

Pitch archetype: none on the first viewport. The page is the work being specified. Pitch (if any) lives below the fold as supporting paragraphs.

Footer archetype: Ft3 Tabular-Specimen — name · weight · OpenType features · designer credit.

Display family role: geometric-sans-heavy (display-display, weights 800-900). Body family role: the same sans at 400 — single-font specimen pages are allowed when the single font is the design (per typography.md). Free candidate: Bricolage Grotesque 800. Paid candidate: Druk or NaN Jaune. Refuse to guess the exact paid font ID.

Surface lightness band: dark (paper L ≈ 12%). The dark is uniform across the viewport — no gradient.

Accent hue band + chroma: chromatic-other — single hot-orange callout at ≈ 0.18 chroma, used on one OpenType-feature label. Even in a stark specimen, the rule "accent < 5% of viewport" holds.

Density verdict: ultra-sparse. One element above the fold. Density only increases below.

Type-pairing role: single-family specimen (single-font is the design). Body and display the same family at different weights.

Two anti-patterns the screenshot has to NOT carry over:

  1. The footer-band uses light-grey text (oklch ~75% lightness) on near-black paper. Contrast ratio ~3.2:1 — fails WCAG AA for body. Bump to oklch ~88% on rebuild.
  2. The grid lines behind the glyph are at 1 px solid white at 0.4 opacity. On a 4K display this becomes a sub-pixel that disappears or aliases. Use 1 px solid + colour-mix down to 35% lightness instead — keeps visibility across pixel densities.

Confirmation question

"This DNA is for a specimen page, not a marketing page. If you're rebranding an agency, the glyph hero will be impressive on the first visit and pointless after. Suggested adaptation: Type Specimen as the homepage, then a Long Document or Workbench pattern for the about / case-studies / contact pages. Pick: keep all-Specimen, or hybrid?"

What study builds (hybrid path)

Macrostructure stamp:

/* Hallmark · macrostructure: Type Specimen · H9 hero knobs: glyph=user-mark, tilt=-2deg, grid=1px-soft
 * theme: Manifesto · accent: hot-orange ~3% · enrichment: none
 * studied: yes · DNA-source: user reference · paid-fonts: not confirmed (Bricolage 800 free)
 */

The homepage emits the agency's mark in 22-rem Bricolage 800, ruled grid behind, single-line metadata footer. The about and case-study pages inherit the dark-paper + geometric-sans tokens but switch to Workbench macrostructure (left-margin index + 1fr content). Brand consistency, structural variety.


Example C · A small-studio personal site (Rauno-Freiberg-style)

What the user pastes: a screenshot of a personal designer-engineer site — dark-mode paper, a small italic-serif name in the top-left, a single demo embed at the centre (CSS-art clock that ticks), a writing list below. (User says: "I want my own personal site to feel like this.")

Refuse-or-proceed check

An ambiguous source is the edge case here. Per study.md § Refusal heuristics: when you can't tell whether the source is the user's own work or someone else's, ask first.

"Is this your own work, a public reference for inspiration, or someone else's live site? If it's someone else's live site, I'll extract the DNA at the structural level only — no copy, no demos, no font IDs — and you'll bring your own content. If it's a paid portfolio template, I won't reproduce it."

User confirms: public reference for inspiration → proceed with DNA extraction only.

Diagnosis report

Macrostructure: Long Document with a centred demo as the hero archetype.

Hero archetype: H5 Centered-Demo — a single hand-built artefact (CSS art, SVG illustration, declarative animation) sized at ~24 rem, centred on the page, no other hero copy above it.

Pitch archetype: P3 List-of-Writings — title + date + 1-line summary, in a tabular column.

Footer archetype: Ft1 Single-Line Colophon.

Display family role: italic editorial serif. Body family role: geometric sans, body weight 400. Free candidate pairing: Fraunces italic + Geist.

Surface lightness band: dark (paper L ≈ 16%). Slight cool tint at hue 240. Inks at ~90-95% L, also slight cool.

Accent hue band + chroma: chromatic-other — green at hue 145, ≈ 0.14 chroma. Used on the active demo's signal element (the ticking dot), nowhere else.

Density verdict: sparse-medium. Hero demo + ~12-line writing list above the fold.

Type-pairing role: italic-display-with-sans-body — same as Specimen, just on dark paper.

One anti-pattern the screenshot has to NOT carry over:

  1. The CSS-art clock loops at 1 fps with no prefers-reduced-motion fallback. Always pair declarative animation with a reduced-motion alternative (microinteractions.md § Reduced motion is a first-class state, not an afterthought).

One thing the screenshot does better than most and you SHOULD carry over:

  1. The italic name in the top-left has a baseline at the same y-position as the centred demo's vertical centre — a subtle horizontal-baseline alignment that makes the page feel composed rather than stacked. Carry this; it's invisible until removed.

Confirmation question

"The DNA is portable: dark paper · italic-Fraunces name · centred demo · cool-green accent. Two questions before I build: (1) what's your demo? — I can hand-build it as Tier-A CSS art if you describe it, or you can paste an existing animation. (2) do you have ~5 writings to seed the list, or should I leave a placeholder section?"

What study builds when the user provides their own demo + writings

Macrostructure stamp:

/* Hallmark · macrostructure: Long Document · H5 hero knobs: demo=centered, size=24rem
 * theme: Midnight · accent: forest-green ~3% · enrichment: Tier-A custom-craft (user-supplied recipe)
 * studied: yes · DNA-source: user reference · with reduced-motion fallback
 */

Output: the user's actual name in italic-Fraunces top-left, their demo (e.g. an ambient breathing-loop) hand-built as CSS art with an explicit @media (prefers-reduced-motion: reduce) fallback, their writings tabulated below in Geist body. The bones from the screenshot; the demo and writings from the user. No pixel-faithful reproduction.


What study doesn't do (worth restating)

  1. Names the font role, not the font ID. Visual font identification is unreliable. The skill proposes one or two real candidates from the canon and asks the user to confirm.
  2. Never copies pixels. The DNA is the macrostructure + archetype + colour-anchor + type-pairing — not the dress.
  3. Refuses the obvious bad sources. Paid-template-marketplace listings; copy-protected portfolios without permission.
  4. Always disclosures the substitutions. When the screenshot's font is paid (Tiempos / Söhne / Druk) and the user hasn't confirmed a licence, the skill names a free understudy (Fraunces / Inter Tight / Bricolage Grotesque) and says it's substituting.

These three examples cover the most common categories of study request: an editorial portfolio, a type-specimen statement page, and a small personal site. The protocol is the same for every screenshot — refuse-or-proceed, diagnose, confirm, build. See study.md for the full protocol.