| name | people-profile-builder |
| description | Create and maintain individual colleague communication profiles in Markdown. Use when the user wants to document a person's communication style, tone preferences, decision style, sensitivities, channels, response cadence, or examples of good vs bad communication, and store it as a per-person profile under input/org/profiles/. |
People Profile Builder
Overview
Create or update a per-person profile to help tailor communication and collaboration. Profiles are stored as Markdown files in input/org/profiles/ using a consistent template.
Workflow
1) Identify the person
- Use
input/org/colleagues.json to confirm the canonical name and any aliases.
- If the name is ambiguous or missing, ask one question at a time until clear.
- Do not invent details; only use user-provided information.
2) Determine the file path
Store each profile at:
input/org/profiles/<slug>.md
Slug rules:
- Lowercase
- Spaces to hyphens
- Remove diacritics (for ascii-only filenames)
- Example:
Hans Magnus Inderberg -> hans-magnus-inderberg.md
3) Create or update the profile
- If the file does not exist, create it using the template below.
- If it exists, update only the relevant sections and preserve existing content.
- If a section has no information yet, leave a
- TBD placeholder.
4) Evolve patterns toward principles
As you gather more evidence:
- Flag "why" moments: When someone explains their reasoning, tag with
[WHY STATED]
- Look for consistency: Do they state similar reasoning in different contexts?
- Promote to principle: After 3+ confirming instances, create entry in "Stated Operating Principles"
- Track predictions: Note when principles correctly/incorrectly predict behavior
- Maintain honesty: Only claim "principle" status when you have their explicit reasoning, not your inference
Quality gates for promoting to principle:
If all YES → It's a principle worth documenting
Profile Template
# <Full Name>
## Overview
- Role:
- Team:
- Relationship:
## Communication Style
-
## Tone Preferences
-
## Decision Style
-
## Motivations
-
## Sensitivities / Watch-outs
-
## Preferred Channels
-
## Response Cadence
-
## Working With Them
-
## Stated Operating Principles
*Principles the person has explicitly articulated. Only add when you have 3+ instances confirming consistency.*
### [Principle Name]
**Statement**: [One-sentence principle in their words or close paraphrase]
**Evidence**:
- Quote: "[Direct quote]" (Source, Date)
- Quote: "[Another instance]" (Source, Date)
- Context: [Related background]
**How this shows up**:
- [Behavioral manifestation 1]
- [Behavioral manifestation 2]
- [Behavioral manifestation 3]
**Predictive value**:
- [What this principle helps you anticipate]
- [Situations where this principle will drive their behavior]
**Verified predictions**:
- ✓ [Prediction that came true] (Date)
- ✗ [Prediction that failed] (Date) - *[What this taught you]*
**Confidence**: High/Medium/Low
## Principle Tensions
: "[Statement]"
Evidence: [Quote/behavior]
: "[Statement]"
Evidence: [Quote/behavior]
:
[Describe the situations where both principles apply]
: [How they typically resolve this tension]
Example: [Specific instance]
- Person explicitly explains reasoning
- Existing principle appears again
- Behavior contradicts stated principle
- Unexplained behavior worth investigating
Profile Evolution Over Time
Monthly Review Process
Profiles should evolve from behavioral patterns to predictive mental models over time.
-
Search for principle evidence:
grep -r "\[WHY STATED\]" input/org/profiles/
-
Cluster by theme: Group related "why" statements across different interactions
-
Promote when ready: Create "Stated Operating Principles" entry when:
- 3+ instances confirming consistency
- Applies across multiple contexts
- Enables behavioral prediction
-
Validate predictions: Track when principle-based predictions succeed/fail
Confidence Calibration
- High: Person explicitly stated this, appears in 3+ contexts, predictions validated
- Medium: Person stated this once or twice, pattern consistent, predictions untested
- Low: Inferred from behavior, not explicitly stated, needs verification
When You Don't Know the "Why"
For unexplained behaviors, add to Notes:
- [OPEN QUESTION] Why does [Person] [behavior]?
- *Possible reasons*: [Hypothesis 1], [Hypothesis 2]
- *How it affects working with them*: [Observable impact]
- *How to test*: [Question to ask or situation to observe]
This maintains intellectual honesty: you acknowledge what you don't know rather than fabricating explanations.
Example: Pattern → Principle Evolution
Month 1: Behavioral Pattern
## Communication Style
- Values early sharing of drafts for feedback before polish
Month 2: "Why" Captured
## Notes / Examples
- [WHY STATED] "Would love your opinions when reading through it so I can make it do a better pass, with all our input" (Feb 6 2026)
Month 3: Multiple Instances
## Notes / Examples
- [WHY STATED] "Would love your opinions..." (Feb 6 2026)
- [PRINCIPLE CONFIRMED] Shared Scenario vision before reading it himself (Feb 6 2026)
- [PRINCIPLE CONFIRMED] Iterated quickly based on Carl's feedback (Feb 7 2026)
Month 4: Promoted to Principle
## Stated Operating Principles
### Collaborative Refinement
**Statement**: "Better outcomes come from collective input on early drafts"
**Evidence**:
- Quote: "Would love your opinions when reading through it so I can make it do a better pass, with all our input" (Slack, Feb 6 2026)
- Shares documents in draft form, not polished final (Scenario vision doc, Feb 2026)
- Iterates quickly based on feedback: "Doing another iteration now" (Feb 7 2026)
**How this shows up**:
- Shares work-in-progress openly
- Explicitly invites critique before polish
- Commits to fast iteration cycles
**Predictive value**:
- Will share documents in draft form, not polished final
- Expects collaborative iteration, not one-way review
- Values speed of feedback over perfect first draft
**Verified predictions**:
- ✓ Shared Scenario doc before self-review (Feb 2026)
- ✓ Iterated same day based on Carl's feedback (Feb 2026)
**Confidence**: High
