Portfolio Review Documentation

Review Date: October 7, 2025 Site: brandonjplambert.com Overall Grade: B+ / 7.5 out of 10

Overview

This directory contains a comprehensive, honest review of the brandonjplambert.com portfolio site, covering content strategy, design, technical implementation, and positioning.

Quick Summary

Strengths: Solid technical foundation, impressive project volume, clear educational focus, professional structure

Weaknesses: Design feels generic/safe, content lacks personality, some projects feel half-finished, minimal differentiation from other AI-assisted portfolios

Key Finding: Strong “educator who codes” positioning is buried under generic “developer portfolio” presentation

Documentation Structure

Core Reviews

Content & Storytelling (Score: 6/10, Potential: 9/10)
- Missing personality and narrative
- Technical specs instead of stories
- How to rewrite project descriptions
Design & UX (Score: 7/10, Potential: 8/10)
- Safe design choices lack personality
- Solid technical execution
- Visual differentiation opportunities
Technical Implementation (Score: 8.5/10, Potential: 9/10)
- Clean code organization
- Technical debt identified
- Refactoring recommendations
Project Quality & Authenticity (Score: 6.5/10, Potential: 9/10)
- Demo URL problem (0 live demos)
- “Active Development” ambiguity
- Authenticity improvements
Unique Positioning (Score: 5/10, Potential: 10/10)
- Fourth-generation educator story
- “Educator who codes” vs “developer who taught”
- Competitive differentiation strategy

Action Plans

Priority Actions (2 Weeks)
- Week 1: Content & positioning improvements
- Week 2: Technical & design enhancements
- ~30 hours total investment
Long-term Roadmap
- 6-month vision
- Major features to build
- Portfolio evolution strategy

Code Examples

Code Improvements
- JavaScript refactoring examples
- Mobile menu modernization
- Language switcher simplification
Content Rewrites
- Before/after project descriptions
- Narrative structure templates
- Emotional hooks

Detailed Scores

Category	Current Score	Potential	Gap
Content & Storytelling	6/10	9/10	3 points
Visual Design & UX	7/10	8/10	1 point
Technical Implementation	8.5/10	9/10	0.5 points
Project Quality	6.5/10	9/10	2.5 points
Unique Positioning	5/10	10/10	5 points
Overall	7.5/10	9.5/10	2 points

Key Insights

The Core Problem

You’re presenting yourself as a “developer with educational background” when you should be presenting as an “educator who builds innovative tools.” This positioning mismatch undersells your unique value proposition.

The Demo Problem

Critical finding: 0 out of 15 projects have working demo URLs. This significantly impacts credibility and makes it impossible to evaluate actual functionality.

The Story Problem

Project descriptions read like feature lists rather than problem-solving narratives. Missing:

Personal pain points
User feedback
Learning insights
Failure stories
Development iterations

The Technical Debt

Despite clean architecture, there are maintainability issues:

346 lines of inline JavaScript in ai-projects.html
Mobile menu using imperative DOM manipulation
Manual navigation duplication
Complex language switcher with hardcoded paths
Production console.logs

How to Use This Documentation

If you have 1 hour

Read: 06-priority-actions.md → Pick ONE action → Execute

If you have 1 day

Read: All core reviews (01-05) → 06-priority-actions.md → Do Week 1 Day 1-2 tasks

If you have 2 weeks

Follow: 06-priority-actions.md day-by-day plan (30 hours total investment)

If you’re planning 6 months

Read: Everything → Focus on 07-long-term-roadmap.md

Quick Wins (High Impact, Low Effort)

Deploy ONE demo (4-8 hours) → Massive credibility boost
Rewrite 3 project descriptions (3 hours) → Transform from specs to stories
Add “educator who codes” thesis to homepage (1 hour) → Clear positioning
Remove “Built with Claude Code” framing (30 minutes) → Focus on decisions, not tools

Files Referenced in Review

Content Files

_data/ai_projects.yml - All project data and descriptions
index.html - Hero section and homepage content
_config.yml - Site configuration and metadata

Design Files

_sass/_variables.scss - Design system tokens
_sass/_components.scss - UI components (489 lines)
_sass/_layout.scss - Layout patterns (605 lines)
_sass/_gallery.scss - Gallery components (585 lines)

JavaScript Files (Inline - Need Extraction)

_layouts/default.html (lines 160-330) - Navigation and language switching
_pages/ai-projects.html (lines 152-498) - Project filtering and modals

Key Sections

_pages/ai-projects.html - Main project showcase
_pages/work.html - Professional background
_pages/resources.html - Spanish learning resources
README.md - Technical documentation (excellent quality)

Review Methodology

This review analyzed:

✅ All YAML data files (_data/)
✅ Complete SCSS codebase (3,211 lines)
✅ HTML templates and layouts
✅ JavaScript implementations
✅ Content strategy and messaging
✅ Visual design and UX patterns
✅ Technical architecture
✅ Competitive positioning

Next Steps

Read this README completely
Review the scoring breakdown
Choose your time investment level
Start with 06-priority-actions.md
Pick ONE improvement to implement today
Track progress and iterate

Questions to Consider

As you read through these reviews, ask yourself:

Identity: Am I a developer or an educator?
Audience: Who am I trying to reach with this portfolio?
Purpose: What do I want viewers to do after visiting?
Differentiation: What makes me unique among portfolio sites?
Authenticity: Does this site reflect my actual journey?

Success Metrics

After implementing improvements, measure:

Do 3+ projects have live demos?
Can someone explain your unique value proposition after 30 seconds?
Do project descriptions tell stories or list features?
Is your educational expertise prominent?
Does the design feel uniquely “you”?
Can you articulate your teaching philosophy?

Translation: You built a solid B+ portfolio with A+ potential. The gap isn’t more work—it’s better framing of existing work.

Start with the quick wins. You’ll see impact immediately.