943 lines
22 KiB
Markdown
943 lines
22 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: pid-initial-creation
|
|
description: Create a person's initial Portable Identity Document (PID) from gathered source materials using the PID template structure. Use this skill when a user wants to generate a first PID from resumes, LinkedIn profiles, bios, project notes, personality tests, websites, social posts, portfolio materials, or other reference documents.
|
|
version: 1.0
|
|
status: draft
|
|
intended_hosts:
|
|
- Claude Desktop
|
|
- Codex Desktop
|
|
- ChatGPT with file/context access
|
|
- other local or cloud AI agent apps
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# PID Initial Creation Skill
|
|
|
|
## Purpose
|
|
|
|
This skill creates a person's first **Portable Identity Document (PID)** from materials they gather and provide.
|
|
|
|
The goal is not to create a traditional resume. The goal is to create a rich, AI-readable, human-reviewable identity document that helps AI systems understand:
|
|
|
|
- who the person is
|
|
- what they know
|
|
- what they have done
|
|
- what they are currently focused on
|
|
- what they need
|
|
- what they can help others with
|
|
- what makes them distinctive
|
|
- what opportunities, collaborators, ideas, and resources may be relevant to them
|
|
|
|
This skill should produce a draft PID in the flow of the PID template while preserving the person's authentic voice, experience, values, interests, and intentions.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Contract
|
|
|
|
This skill guarantees:
|
|
|
|
- It will create a complete first-draft PID using the standard PID template flow.
|
|
- It will use only the user's provided materials and clearly marked user statements unless the user explicitly asks for outside research.
|
|
- It will not invent credentials, achievements, affiliations, projects, relationships, or claims.
|
|
- It will identify gaps, uncertainties, and places where the user should add more detail.
|
|
- It will preserve the user's authentic signal rather than turning them into generic AI-generated professional language.
|
|
- It will include privacy cautions and avoid sensitive identifiers.
|
|
- It will produce a reviewable Markdown PID draft.
|
|
- It will produce a separate improvement checklist for the user.
|
|
- It will include customization prompts where the user may adapt the PID for their own goals.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Inputs
|
|
|
|
The skill expects as many of the following as the user can provide.
|
|
|
|
## Required
|
|
|
|
- The current PID template.
|
|
- At least one source of personal/professional information.
|
|
|
|
## Recommended Source Materials
|
|
|
|
The user may provide:
|
|
|
|
- resume
|
|
- LinkedIn profile export or pasted profile text
|
|
- short bio
|
|
- long bio
|
|
- personal website text
|
|
- company website text
|
|
- project notes
|
|
- portfolio materials
|
|
- case studies
|
|
- writing samples
|
|
- social posts
|
|
- newsletters
|
|
- podcast appearances
|
|
- presentation abstracts
|
|
- business descriptions
|
|
- product/service descriptions
|
|
- personality test results
|
|
- strengths assessments
|
|
- values exercises
|
|
- testimonials
|
|
- endorsements
|
|
- publications
|
|
- education history
|
|
- certifications
|
|
- affiliations
|
|
- event participation
|
|
- personal notes about current goals
|
|
- list of what they need
|
|
- list of what they can offer
|
|
- list of things they want AI agents to discover about them
|
|
|
|
## Optional User Direction
|
|
|
|
Ask the user to provide short answers to these questions if source materials are thin:
|
|
|
|
1. What do you want to be found for?
|
|
2. What kinds of people or opportunities do you want to attract?
|
|
3. What are you open to right now?
|
|
4. What are you currently working on?
|
|
5. What do you need help with?
|
|
6. What can you help others with?
|
|
7. What makes your approach different?
|
|
8. What should AI systems not misunderstand about you?
|
|
9. What should not be included publicly?
|
|
10. What tone should the PID use: straightforward, warm, technical, entrepreneurial, creative, academic, executive, or other?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Outputs
|
|
|
|
This skill produces:
|
|
|
|
## Primary Output
|
|
|
|
- `PID-draft.md`
|
|
|
|
A complete first-draft Portable Identity Document in Markdown using the PID template flow.
|
|
|
|
## Secondary Output
|
|
|
|
- `PID-review-checklist.md`
|
|
|
|
A checklist of:
|
|
|
|
- missing information
|
|
- unclear claims
|
|
- generic language to improve
|
|
- unsupported claims to verify
|
|
- privacy items to review
|
|
- suggested user edits
|
|
- sections that need more specificity
|
|
- optional customizations based on the user's goals
|
|
|
|
## Optional Output
|
|
|
|
If the user requests structured data or the host supports writing multiple files, produce:
|
|
|
|
- `PID-source-map.md` — maps PID claims back to source materials
|
|
- `PID-open-questions.md` — questions the user should answer before publishing
|
|
- `PID-publication-notes.md` — guidance for publishing via Google Drive, OneDrive, GitHub, PDF, or personal website
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Skill Shape
|
|
|
|
`service`
|
|
|
|
This is one bounded workflow with clear inputs and outputs.
|
|
|
|
It may optionally use a lightweight `reviewer-panel` pattern if the host supports subagents or multiple review passes.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Requires
|
|
|
|
This skill requires:
|
|
|
|
- access to the PID template
|
|
- access to the user's provided source materials
|
|
- ability to read text files or pasted text
|
|
- ability to write a Markdown output file or provide Markdown text
|
|
- ability to ask clarifying questions when essential information is missing
|
|
|
|
If the host cannot read attachments, ask the user to paste the materials or provide accessible text.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Ensures
|
|
|
|
Before finishing, this skill ensures:
|
|
|
|
- all standard PID sections are present
|
|
- unsupported claims are removed or marked for user verification
|
|
- sensitive details are excluded or flagged
|
|
- generic resume language is reduced
|
|
- the PID contains concrete capabilities, assets, needs, proof, and match context
|
|
- the output is organized for AI comprehension and human review
|
|
- the final answer tells the user what was produced and what still needs review
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Capabilities
|
|
|
|
Required host capabilities:
|
|
|
|
- CLI tools: optional
|
|
- MCP/connectors: optional
|
|
- browser access: optional; use only if user explicitly requests public web enrichment
|
|
- filesystem access: recommended for reading source documents and writing outputs
|
|
- network access: optional
|
|
- subagent support: optional
|
|
- image/document/spreadsheet support: useful but not required
|
|
|
|
If a required capability is unavailable, fail closed or ask the user for another format. Do not silently pretend to have read unavailable materials.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# State Scope
|
|
|
|
`project`
|
|
|
|
Persistent writes, if available:
|
|
|
|
- `PID-draft.md`
|
|
- `PID-review-checklist.md`
|
|
- optional source map and open questions files
|
|
|
|
Do not update long-term user memory unless the user explicitly asks.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Host Primitive Adapter
|
|
|
|
Map abstract needs to available host actions:
|
|
|
|
- spawn subagent: optional; use reviewer personas if available
|
|
- ask user: ask only when missing information blocks a useful draft
|
|
- read/write files: read user materials and write Markdown outputs when possible
|
|
- run shell command: optional; not normally required
|
|
- use browser: only if user asks for web enrichment or public source verification
|
|
- use connector: optional for Google Drive, OneDrive, GitHub, or local files
|
|
- create durable report: required if file writing is available
|
|
|
|
If the host cannot create files, output Markdown content directly and tell the user to save it.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Customization Points
|
|
|
|
This is a general-purpose PID creation skill. Users may customize it for their own needs.
|
|
|
|
## Customize Audience
|
|
|
|
The user may tune the PID toward:
|
|
|
|
- hiring
|
|
- being hired
|
|
- partnerships
|
|
- investor discovery
|
|
- advisory work
|
|
- project collaborators
|
|
- local community building
|
|
- industry networking
|
|
- research collaboration
|
|
- creator/media visibility
|
|
- AI-agent matchmaking
|
|
- NetworkSIG participation
|
|
|
|
## Customize Domain
|
|
|
|
The user may add domain-specific language; for example:
|
|
|
|
- outdoor industry
|
|
- paddlesports
|
|
- software
|
|
- AI
|
|
- manufacturing
|
|
- education
|
|
- finance
|
|
- energy
|
|
- agriculture
|
|
- local services
|
|
- consulting
|
|
- creative work
|
|
- nonprofit work
|
|
- public lands/conservation
|
|
- pet/dog training
|
|
- any other field
|
|
|
|
## Customize Privacy
|
|
|
|
The user may set rules such as:
|
|
|
|
- do not include employer names
|
|
- do not include client names
|
|
- do not include revenue numbers
|
|
- do not include family details
|
|
- do not include health information
|
|
- do not include exact street address
|
|
- do not include private projects
|
|
- summarize sensitive work at a high level
|
|
|
|
## Customize Tone
|
|
|
|
The user may request:
|
|
|
|
- concise
|
|
- warm
|
|
- executive
|
|
- technical
|
|
- entrepreneurial
|
|
- plainspoken
|
|
- academic
|
|
- creative
|
|
- community-oriented
|
|
- highly detailed
|
|
- minimally promotional
|
|
|
|
## Customize Publication Target
|
|
|
|
The user may indicate where the PID will live:
|
|
|
|
- Google Doc
|
|
- Microsoft OneDrive Word document
|
|
- public Github Markdown file
|
|
- PDF hosted in cloud storage
|
|
- personal website
|
|
- advanced PID repo (see pid-maturity-model-roadmap.md)
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Workflow
|
|
|
|
## Phase 1: Intake And Source Inventory
|
|
|
|
1. List all source materials provided.
|
|
2. Identify the type of each source:
|
|
- resume
|
|
- profile
|
|
- bio
|
|
- project notes
|
|
- social posts
|
|
- personality tests
|
|
- portfolio
|
|
- website
|
|
- other
|
|
3. Determine whether source materials are sufficient to create a useful first draft.
|
|
4. If materials are too thin, ask only the most essential missing questions.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- sources are known
|
|
- missing material is identified
|
|
- privacy risks are noted
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 2: Extract Raw Identity Signals
|
|
|
|
Extract information into these buckets:
|
|
|
|
- open-to categories
|
|
- skills and expertise
|
|
- tools and technologies
|
|
- relationships and networks
|
|
- data/content assets
|
|
- physical assets
|
|
- platforms and systems
|
|
- capital/access
|
|
- products and services
|
|
- immediate needs
|
|
- strategic needs
|
|
- constraints and gaps
|
|
- current projects
|
|
- experiments
|
|
- research
|
|
- business initiatives
|
|
- interests
|
|
- industries
|
|
- technologies
|
|
- problems
|
|
- curiosities
|
|
- experience
|
|
- education
|
|
- affiliations
|
|
- credibility signals
|
|
- values
|
|
- principles
|
|
- strengths
|
|
- weaknesses/blind spots
|
|
- energy patterns
|
|
- work style
|
|
- superpowers
|
|
- builds
|
|
- results
|
|
- experiments
|
|
- case studies
|
|
- artifacts
|
|
- additional signals
|
|
- ideal collaborators
|
|
- ideal problems
|
|
- non-ideal matches
|
|
- recent updates
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- each relevant signal is captured
|
|
- uncertain signals are marked as uncertain
|
|
- no unsupported claim is promoted as fact
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 3: Create AI-Distinctive Identity Layer
|
|
|
|
Improve machine-legibility by identifying:
|
|
|
|
1. Clear category anchoring
|
|
2. Differentiation statement
|
|
3. Named systems, methods, or frameworks
|
|
4. Vocabulary ownership
|
|
5. Explicit capabilities
|
|
6. Inputs → transformation → outputs
|
|
7. Audience and use-case specificity
|
|
8. Memorable concept hooks
|
|
9. Generic language to replace
|
|
|
|
Do not over-polish. The goal is distinctive signal, not generic professional branding.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- the PID contains clear category anchoring
|
|
- the PID includes at least one differentiation statement or flags that the user must supply one
|
|
- the PID avoids generic claims wherever possible
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 4: Draft The PID In Template Flow
|
|
|
|
Create `PID-draft.md` using this structure:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
# Portable Identity Document: [Person Name]
|
|
|
|
## Overview
|
|
|
|
## Privacy And Publication Notes
|
|
|
|
# 1. Open To
|
|
|
|
# 2. What I Have
|
|
|
|
# 3. What I Need
|
|
|
|
# 4. Current Focus
|
|
|
|
# 5. Interests, Passions, Talents
|
|
|
|
# 6. History
|
|
|
|
# 7. Credibility
|
|
|
|
# 8. Identity Layer
|
|
|
|
# 9. Proof Of Work
|
|
|
|
# Additional Signals
|
|
|
|
# Match Context
|
|
|
|
# Update Log
|
|
|
|
# Appendix / Open Questions
|
|
|
|
This list is based on the pid-template.md file. That file may evolve to a different structure. Make sure the user has given the AI access to the latest version of this file.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
If the person's name is not provided, use:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
# Portable Identity Document
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Do not fabricate a name.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- all PID sections exist
|
|
- weak sections include useful prompts rather than invented filler
|
|
- the draft is coherent and ready for human review
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 5: Add Review Prompts Inside The PID
|
|
|
|
Where appropriate, insert short prompts such as:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
[USER REVIEW: Confirm whether this is accurate.]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
[USER ADD: Add examples, links, or proof.]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
[USER DECIDE: Keep this public, summarize it, or remove it.]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
[USER CUSTOMIZE: Adjust this section for your specific goals.]
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Use these sparingly. The PID should be readable, not cluttered.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- important uncertainty is visible
|
|
- user knows where to refine
|
|
- the draft does not pretend to be final
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 6: Privacy And Sensitivity Review
|
|
|
|
Review the PID for:
|
|
|
|
- exact home address
|
|
- phone numbers
|
|
- personal identifiers
|
|
- private client details
|
|
- private employer information
|
|
- family details
|
|
- health information
|
|
- financial details
|
|
- legal issues
|
|
- confidential business information
|
|
- private project details
|
|
- anything the user explicitly marked private
|
|
|
|
If found, either remove, generalize, or flag.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
- Replace exact street address with City/State/Country.
|
|
- Replace client names with industry or category.
|
|
- Replace revenue numbers with ranges or qualitative descriptions if appropriate.
|
|
- Remove sensitive personal details unless explicitly approved.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- the PID is suitable for public URL sharing, subject to user review
|
|
- sensitive items are not accidentally included
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 7: Reviewer Panel
|
|
|
|
If subagents or multiple review passes are available, run a lightweight reviewer panel.
|
|
|
|
Use these personas:
|
|
|
|
## Designer
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
|
|
|
|
- readability
|
|
- document flow
|
|
- clarity
|
|
- tone
|
|
- human usability
|
|
|
|
## Architect
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
|
|
|
|
- structure
|
|
- section separation
|
|
- future migration to repo/data files
|
|
- machine readability
|
|
|
|
## Domain Expert
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
|
|
|
|
- whether the person's domain positioning is specific
|
|
- whether jargon is appropriate
|
|
- whether capabilities and proof are credible
|
|
|
|
## Human Advocate
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
|
|
|
|
- authenticity
|
|
- privacy
|
|
- user agency
|
|
- over-polishing
|
|
- whether the person still sounds like a real person
|
|
|
|
## Performance Expert
|
|
|
|
Reviews:
|
|
|
|
- retrieval usefulness
|
|
- whether agents can quickly identify needs, offers, capabilities, proof, and match context
|
|
|
|
## Code Expert
|
|
|
|
Normally not required for a Level 1 PID. Use only if the PID includes structured JSON, GitHub repo setup, scripts, or technical publication requirements.
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- reviewer issues are either fixed or included in the review checklist
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 8: Produce Review Checklist
|
|
|
|
Create `PID-review-checklist.md` with these sections:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
# PID Review Checklist
|
|
|
|
## Highest Priority Edits
|
|
|
|
## Missing Information
|
|
|
|
## Claims To Verify
|
|
|
|
## Privacy Items To Review
|
|
|
|
## Generic Language To Improve
|
|
|
|
## Suggested Specificity Upgrades
|
|
|
|
## Suggested Proof Links
|
|
|
|
## Suggested Differentiation Improvements
|
|
|
|
## Suggested Match Context Improvements
|
|
|
|
## Publication Readiness
|
|
|
|
## Optional Next-Level Upgrades
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- the user knows exactly what to edit next
|
|
- publication risks are clear
|
|
- next steps are practical
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Phase 9: Publication Guidance
|
|
|
|
At the end of the PID or in `PID-publication-notes.md`, include brief guidance.
|
|
|
|
Recommended publication options:
|
|
|
|
1. Google Doc with public URL
|
|
2. Microsoft OneDrive Word document with public URL
|
|
3. Markdown file in a public GitHub repository
|
|
4. PDF hosted in cloud storage
|
|
5. Personal website page
|
|
6. Advanced PID repository
|
|
|
|
Warn:
|
|
|
|
- do not share static copies that will go out of date
|
|
- share the URL to the maintained source
|
|
- review privacy before making public
|
|
- update periodically
|
|
|
|
Completion criteria:
|
|
|
|
- the user understands where to save the PID
|
|
- the PID is URL-accessible after the user publishes it
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Validation
|
|
|
|
Before finishing, verify:
|
|
|
|
## Structural Validation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] PID title exists.
|
|
- [ ] Overview exists.
|
|
- [ ] Open To exists.
|
|
- [ ] What I Have exists.
|
|
- [ ] What I Need exists.
|
|
- [ ] Current Focus exists.
|
|
- [ ] Interests, Passions, Talents exists.
|
|
- [ ] History exists.
|
|
- [ ] Credibility exists.
|
|
- [ ] Identity Layer exists.
|
|
- [ ] Proof Of Work exists.
|
|
- [ ] Additional Signals exists.
|
|
- [ ] Match Context exists.
|
|
- [ ] Update Log exists.
|
|
- [ ] Open Questions or Review Checklist exists.
|
|
|
|
This list is based on the pid-template.md file. That file may evolve to a different structure. Make sure the user has given the AI access to the latest version of this file.
|
|
|
|
|
|
## Faithfulness Validation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] No major claim is invented.
|
|
- [ ] Unsupported claims are flagged.
|
|
- [ ] The draft does not exaggerate credentials.
|
|
- [ ] The draft distinguishes facts from inferences.
|
|
- [ ] The draft preserves the user's actual direction and interests.
|
|
|
|
## Specificity Validation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Generic phrases are reduced.
|
|
- [ ] Capabilities are stated explicitly.
|
|
- [ ] At least one differentiation statement is present or requested.
|
|
- [ ] Current focus is concrete.
|
|
- [ ] Needs are actionable.
|
|
- [ ] Match context is clear enough for agents to use.
|
|
|
|
## Privacy Validation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] No sensitive identifiers are included.
|
|
- [ ] Exact address is not included.
|
|
- [ ] Private details are removed or flagged.
|
|
- [ ] Public-readiness warning is included.
|
|
|
|
## AI-Usability Validation
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Section headings are clear.
|
|
- [ ] Bullets are used where helpful.
|
|
- [ ] Needs/offers/capabilities are easy to extract.
|
|
- [ ] Proof links or artifact prompts are included where needed.
|
|
- [ ] The document is suitable for future conversion into repo structure or JSON.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Test Surface
|
|
|
|
This skill can be tested through:
|
|
|
|
- Static checks:
|
|
- required sections exist
|
|
- output file names are correct
|
|
- no unresolved placeholders remain except intentional `[USER ...]` review prompts
|
|
|
|
- Invariant checks:
|
|
- no invented claims
|
|
- no sensitive identifiers
|
|
- all PID sections appear in the correct order
|
|
|
|
- Fixture tests:
|
|
- resume-only input
|
|
- LinkedIn-only input
|
|
- project-notes-only input
|
|
- sparse input
|
|
- highly technical input
|
|
- nontraditional career input
|
|
- business owner input
|
|
- student/early-career input
|
|
- retired/advisory-focused input
|
|
|
|
- Behavioral tests:
|
|
- agent asks for missing essentials when needed
|
|
- agent does not fabricate information
|
|
- agent flags uncertainty
|
|
- agent produces review checklist
|
|
- agent performs privacy review before finishing
|
|
|
|
- LLM-as-judge evals:
|
|
- authenticity
|
|
- specificity
|
|
- usefulness for AI matching
|
|
- clarity
|
|
- faithfulness to sources
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Edge Cases
|
|
|
|
Actively handle:
|
|
|
|
- user provides only a resume
|
|
- user provides only scattered notes
|
|
- user has multiple careers or identities
|
|
- user has no formal resume
|
|
- user is early career
|
|
- user is retired or semi-retired
|
|
- user is a founder with multiple companies
|
|
- user has confidential clients
|
|
- user has sensitive personal history
|
|
- user wants to be hired but also wants partnerships
|
|
- user has many interests and no clear focus
|
|
- user has no obvious proof of work
|
|
- user uses vague language
|
|
- source materials contradict each other
|
|
- source materials are outdated
|
|
- source materials are overly promotional
|
|
- source materials contain private information
|
|
- user wants a highly public PID
|
|
- user wants a semi-private PID
|
|
- user plans to migrate to a GitHub PID repo later
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Ratchet Rules
|
|
|
|
When this skill discovers a recurring mistake, ambiguous case, failed validation, or agent shortcut, convert the lesson into at least one durable artifact:
|
|
|
|
- updated skill instruction
|
|
- anti-pattern
|
|
- example prompt
|
|
- validation checklist item
|
|
- privacy rule
|
|
- source-material intake question
|
|
- fixture case
|
|
- output schema requirement
|
|
- reviewer-panel rule
|
|
|
|
Do not merely fix the current PID. Improve the skill so future PID drafts are better.
|
|
|
|
Examples:
|
|
|
|
- If the agent invents achievements, add a stronger unsupported-claim rule.
|
|
- If the agent misses privacy risks, add a privacy checklist item.
|
|
- If the agent creates generic language, add examples of stronger specificity.
|
|
- If the agent struggles with early-career users, add an early-career fixture.
|
|
- If users repeatedly omit "What I Need," add intake questions for needs.
|
|
- If users do not know their differentiation, add a differentiation interview step.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
Do not:
|
|
|
|
- write a traditional resume
|
|
- reduce the person to job titles
|
|
- over-polish the person into generic professional branding
|
|
- invent claims
|
|
- invent metrics
|
|
- invent credentials
|
|
- invent affiliations
|
|
- invent current goals
|
|
- include sensitive identifiers
|
|
- include exact home address
|
|
- expose private client names without approval
|
|
- assume all source materials are current
|
|
- bury needs and offers in long prose
|
|
- omit the review checklist
|
|
- skip privacy review
|
|
- skip uncertainty flags
|
|
- create a PID that sounds like everyone else
|
|
- use vague phrases like "innovative," "hardworking," "detail-oriented," or "customer-focused" without concrete proof
|
|
- ask AI to make the person sound like internet averages instead of themselves
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Run Receipt
|
|
|
|
For serious use, leave a short run receipt at the end of the final response or in a separate file:
|
|
|
|
```md
|
|
# PID Creation Run Receipt
|
|
|
|
## Inputs Used
|
|
|
|
## Outputs Produced
|
|
|
|
## Sections Completed
|
|
|
|
## Sections Needing User Review
|
|
|
|
## Privacy Checks Performed
|
|
|
|
## Unsupported Claims Removed Or Flagged
|
|
|
|
## Validation Results
|
|
|
|
## Ratchet Lessons
|
|
|
|
## Recommended Next Steps
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Final Report
|
|
|
|
When finished, report:
|
|
|
|
- what was produced
|
|
- what source materials were used
|
|
- what was validated
|
|
- what still needs user review
|
|
- whether any sensitive material was removed or flagged
|
|
- where the user should publish the PID
|
|
- what optional next-level upgrades are recommended
|
|
|
|
Keep the final report concise unless the user asks for detail.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Suggested User Prompt
|
|
|
|
Users can run this skill with a prompt like:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Use the PID Initial Creation Skill to create my first Portable Identity Document.
|
|
|
|
I am providing:
|
|
1. my source materials
|
|
2. the PID template
|
|
3. this skill
|
|
|
|
Create:
|
|
- PID-draft.md
|
|
- PID-review-checklist.md
|
|
|
|
Follow the PID template flow. Do not invent claims. Flag anything uncertain. Remove or flag privacy-sensitive details. Make the PID specific, authentic, and useful for AI agents to understand what I know, what I have, what I need, what I am working on, and what kinds of opportunities or collaborators would be relevant.
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Advanced Optional Prompt
|
|
|
|
For users who want a stronger first draft:
|
|
|
|
```text
|
|
Before drafting my PID, first extract my raw identity signals into buckets:
|
|
- skills
|
|
- assets
|
|
- needs
|
|
- current focus
|
|
- interests
|
|
- history
|
|
- credibility
|
|
- identity layer
|
|
- proof of work
|
|
- additional signals
|
|
- match context
|
|
|
|
Then generate the PID draft.
|
|
|
|
After drafting, run a review pass for:
|
|
- specificity
|
|
- authenticity
|
|
- privacy
|
|
- AI findability
|
|
- missing proof
|
|
- unsupported claims
|
|
|
|
Finally, produce a review checklist and publication notes.
|
|
```
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# One-Sentence Version
|
|
|
|
Use the person's own materials to create a specific, authentic, privacy-reviewed Portable Identity Document that helps AI agents understand who they are, what they have, what they need, what they are building, and how they should be discovered.
|