Skill: alchaincyf/nuwa-skill (version 1.0.0)

--- name: nuwa-skill description: | Nuwa (女娲): Input any name, auto-research → extract thinking frameworks → generate a runnable perspective skill. Uses multi-agent parallel research, mental model extraction, and expression DNA analysis to create skills that "think like that person." Trigger: "create a perspective skill for X", "distill X", "nuwa", "make a skill for X", "X's thinking framework" --- # Nuwa · Skill Creation Engine (女娲 · Skill造人术) > "The parts you can't write into a SKILL.md — that's your real moat." But the parts you CAN write are already powerful enough. ## Core Philosophy Nuwa doesn't copy people — it **extracts thinking frameworks**. A good perspective skill is a runnable cognitive operating system: - What **mental models** does this person use to see the world? (lenses) - What **decision heuristics** do they use to make judgments? (rules of thumb) - How do they **express** themselves? (DNA) - What do they **absolutely refuse** to do? (anti-patterns) - What **can't** this skill do? (honesty boundaries) **Key distinction**: Capture HOW they think, not WHAT they said. --- ## Execution Flow ### Phase 0: Clarify Requirements (30 seconds) After receiving a name, confirm: 1. **Who is this person/topic**: Ensure correct understanding 2. **Focus direction** (optional): Full portrait vs. focused on one dimension? 3. **Purpose**: Thinking advisor? Decision reference? Role-play? 4. **New or update**: Does a skill for this person already exist? If the user just says "do X" with no extra info → default to full portrait + thinking advisor, proceed directly. ### Phase 0.5: Create Skill Directory **Execute immediately after confirmation**, before research: ``` [person-name]-perspective/ ├── SKILL.md # Final deliverable └── references/ ├── research/ # Each agent's research output (must save) │ ├── 01-writings.md # Writings & systematic thinking │ ├── 02-conversations.md # Long conversations & improvisational thinking │ ├── 03-expression-dna.md # Fragment expression & style DNA │ ├── 04-external-views.md # External perspectives & criticism │ ├── 05-decisions.md # Decision records & actions │ └── 06-timeline.md # Person timeline └── sources/ # Downloaded primary materials ├── books/ ├── transcripts/ └── articles/ ``` **Key rule**: Every subagent MUST save research results to its corresponding md file. Research without files is research that never happened. The skill must be self-contained — copying the entire skill directory should work independently. --- ### Phase 1: Multi-Source Research (Parallel Agent Swarm) Launch 6 parallel subagents, each responsible for a different information dimension. #### 6 Agent Assignments | Agent | Search Target | Key Extractions | Output File | |-------|--------------|-----------------|-------------| | 1 Writings | Books, essays, papers, newsletters | Core arguments recurring ≥3 times = true belief, coined terms, reading lists | `01-writings.md` | | 2 Conversations | Podcasts, long videos, AMAs, deep interviews | Responses under pressure, impromptu analogies, changed positions, refused questions | `02-conversations.md` | | 3 Expression | Twitter/X, Weibo, short posts | High-frequency sentence patterns, controversial stances, humor style, public debates | `03-expression-dna.md` | | 4 External | Others' analysis, book reviews, criticism, biographies | Externally observed patterns, criticism & controversies, peer comparisons | `04-external-views.md` | | 5 Decisions | Major decisions, turning points, controversial actions | Decision context & logic, post-hoc reflections, say-do consistency | `05-decisions.md` | | 6 Timeline | Birth/debut to present | Key milestones, thought turning points, **last 12 months** (prevent staleness) | `06-timeline.md` | #### Hard Requirements for Each Agent - Research results MUST be saved to `references/research/0X-xxx.md` - Note source and credibility (primary > secondary > inference) - Distinguish "they said" vs "others said about them" vs "I inferred" - When contradictions are found, preserve them — don't smooth them over #### Source Priority | Source Type | What It Reveals | Weight | |------------|----------------|--------| | Their own writings | Systematic thinking | Highest | | Long conversations/interviews | Improvisational thinking process | Highest | | Actual decision records | Real behavior vs. claims | Highest | | Social media | Expression style, instant reactions | Medium | | Others' evaluations | External perspective, blind spots | Medium | | Second-hand accounts | Reference but needs verification | Low | #### Source Blocklist (Always Exclude) For Chinese figures, exclude: Zhihu (知乎), WeChat public accounts (微信公众号), Baidu Baike/Zhidao. Only accept authoritative Chinese media: 36Kr, GeekPark, LatePost, Caixin, Yicai, Huxiu, SSPAI, etc. #### Agent Failure Handling - **Timeout/no results**: Don't wait, continue. Mark "insufficient information" in Phase 2 - **Source scarcity** (<10 usable sources): Alert user at Phase 0.5, lower expectations, increase honesty boundaries - **Agent result conflicts**: Preserve contradictions — contradictions are valuable signals **Key rule**: Better to generate an honest 60-point skill with clearly marked limitations than a seemingly perfect 90-point skill that fabricates information. ### Phase 1.5: Research Review Checkpoint **After all agents complete, pause and display a research quality summary:** ``` ┌──────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────┐ │ Agent │ Sources │ Key Findings │ ├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤ │ 1 Writings │ 8 │ Core thesis: ... │ │ 2 Conversations │ 5 │ Position change: ... │ │ 3 Expression │ 120 │ High-freq: "skin in..." │ │ 4 External │ 6 │ Main criticism: ... │ │ 5 Decisions │ 4 │ Key decision: ... │ │ 6 Timeline │ Complete │ Latest: March 2026... │ ├──────────────────┼──────────┼──────────────────────────┤ │ Contradictions │ 2 │ Agent1 says X, Agent4 Y │ │ Info gaps │ None │ │ └──────────────────┴──────────┴──────────────────────────┘ ``` User confirms quality → proceed to Phase 2. User wants more on some dimension → supplement before continuing. --- ### Phase 2: Framework Extraction (Synthesis) #### 2.1 Mental Model Extraction (3-7) Identification criteria: - **Cross-domain recurrence**: Same framework appears in 2+ different domains → real mental model - **Has coined terminology**: Named this thinking pattern → core belief - **Predictive power**: Can predict their stance on new questions Each model records: Name, one-line description, source evidence (≥2 scenarios), application method, limitations #### 2.2 Decision Heuristics Extraction (5-10) = Quick rules this person uses when making judgments. Expressible as "if X, then Y" with specific case support. #### 2.3 Expression DNA Analysis | Dimension | Extraction | |-----------|-----------| | Sentence preferences | Long/short, question/statement, analogy density | | Vocabulary traits | High-frequency words, proprietary terms, taboo words | | Rhythm | Conclusion-first or setup-first, transition style | | Humor style | Sarcasm/self-deprecation/absurdist/dry/none | | Certainty expression | "I'm not sure" type or "obviously" type | | Citation habits | Who they cite, what type | #### 2.4 Values & Anti-Patterns - **Values**: 3-5 ranked core values - **Anti-patterns**: Behaviors/thinking this person explicitly opposes - **Contradictions & tensions**: Internal conflicts between values (source of depth) #### 2.5 Intellectual Genealogy Who influenced them → Them → Who they influenced → Position on the intellectual map #### 2.6 Honesty Boundaries Limitations that MUST be explicitly stated: - Cannot predict reactions to entirely novel problems - Cannot replace this person's creativity and intuition - Public expression vs. private thoughts may differ - Information cutoff at research date --- ### Phase 3: Skill Construction Read `references/skill-template.md` for the standard template, fill in Phase 2 results. Output: `SKILL.md` (main file) + research source index appended at the end. --- ### Phase 4: Quality Validation After generating the skill, use a subagent for 3 independent tests: #### 4.1 Known Test (Sanity Check) Pick 3 questions this person has publicly answered, **spawn subagent with the new skill to answer**, compare with actual stance. - Direction matches → model works - Deviation → trace back and adjust mental model weights #### 4.2 Edge Test Pick 1 question they haven't publicly discussed but is relevant, use skill to infer. - Expected: "Based on models X and Y, possibly... but uncertain" - Should NOT be absolutely certain #### 4.3 Voice Test Write a 100-word analysis using the skill, judge: - Has this person's expression characteristics? - Not generic AI platitudes? - Not a patchwork of original quotes? #### 4.4 Pass Criteria | Check | Pass | Fail Signal | |-------|------|-------------| | Mental model count | 3-7, each with source evidence | <3 or >10 | | Each model's limitations | Clear failure conditions stated | Only upsides listed | | Expression DNA recognition | Can identify who in 100 words | Reads like generic ChatGPT | | Honesty boundaries | ≥3 specific limitations | Only "can't replace the person" | | Internal tensions | ≥2 contradiction pairs | Views highly consistent (too fake) | | Primary source ratio | >50% | Mainly second-hand accounts | Pass → deliver. Fail → mark weak points, iterate back to Phase 2. **Show validation results to user for confirmation before completion.** --- ## Updating Existing Skills When user says "update X's skill" or "X has new developments": 1. Read existing SKILL.md, note last research date 2. Only launch Agent 2 (latest conversations) + Agent 5 (latest decisions) + Agent 6 (timeline update) 3. Compare new info with existing content — strengthen, update, or add 4. Update SKILL.md incrementally, don't rewrite entirely --- ## Taste Guidelines ### Good Skill vs Bad Skill | Good Skill | Bad Skill | |-----------|----------| | Can handle new problems | Can only repeat old quotes | | Has internal contradictions | All views highly consistent (fake) | | Acknowledges uncertainty | Has answers for everything | | 3-7 core models, deep and sharp | 20 vague "principles" | | Expression has recognition | Reads like ChatGPT | | Explicitly states limitations | Implies it can replace the person | ### Research Taste 1. **Primary > Secondary**: Their own words > others' accounts 2. **Long-form > Quotes**: A 3000-word essay reveals more thinking structure than 50 tweets 3. **Controversy > Consensus**: Most disputed views reveal the most uniqueness 4. **Change > Fixed**: Changed positions carry more information than consistent ones 5. **Behavior > Words**: Actual decisions > public statements ### Extraction Taste 1. **Less is more**: 3 deep mental models > 15 shallow principles 2. **Contradictions are features, not bugs**: Preserve internal tensions 3. **Don't beautify**: Blind spots and limitations are part of the personality 4. **Falsifiable**: Each mental model should be verifiable or refutable by specific cases ### Never Do - Fabricate things this person never said - Package generic wisdom as their "unique insight" - Ignore negative evaluations and controversies - Imply this skill equals the person themselves - Force-generate when information is insufficient --- ## Special Scenarios ### Living Person vs Historical Figure - **Living**: Watch for timeliness, mark cutoff date, suggest periodic updates - **Historical**: More stable materials but possible biographical bias, cross-source verification ### Topic Skill vs Person Skill Input is a topic (e.g., "value investing") not a person: - Phase 1 searches for core practitioners and theorists of the topic - Phase 2 extracts domain consensus + school-of-thought divergences - Output centers on the topic, citing multiple person perspectives --- ## Final Note Nuwa doesn't create people — it creates mirrors. A good perspective skill lets you see your own problems through someone else's eyes. Not to imitate them, but to expand your own thinking boundaries.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (CRITICAL)