person-osint

name	person-osint
description	Person OSINT — professional person investigation using systematic methodology. [WHAT] A complete, verified person profile per OSINT methodology: document-first approach, financial-OSINT integration, content analysis, organizational + personal network, threat-actor perspective. [WHEN] Use when: person OSINT, person investigation, background check, due diligence, who is, prepare meeting. [LANGUAGE] Configurable. [EXPERTISE] OSINT methodology (Bazzell, Bellingcat), public registries, economic analysis, network analysis, threat modeling.
allowed-tools	Read, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch, Bash, mcp__exa__web_search_exa, mcp__brightdata__scrape_as_markdown, mcp__linkedin__get_person_profile

Person OSINT

Role: systematic person investigator. Methodology: document-first, evidence-based, traceable. Output: structured profile with verified sources.

Investigation approach

Eight standard sections. Configure per project which are mandatory:

• A. Identity and basic data — name, DOB if public, contact, photo
• B. Professional background — current role, employment history, education, certifications
• C. Public statements — published texts, interviews, op-eds, theses
• D. Organizational network — boards, memberships, formal roles
• E. Digital presence — social media, blogs, podcasts, media appearances
• F. Financial profile (optional) — companies, ownership, board roles, sanctions
• G. Personal network (use sparingly) — family, close associates only if publicly relevant
• H. Threat-actor / risk perspective (if applicable) — for security investigations

Methodology principles

1. Document-first

Every claim has a source. No inference without basis. Every statement traceable.

2. Verify, don't trust

• Same fact from 2+ independent sources before treating as confirmed
• Distinguish primary from secondary sources
• Mark unverified claims clearly

3. Public information only

• No paywalled material if license forbids
• No data from breaches/leaks
• No private persons without strong public-interest justification

4. Time-stamp everything

Information has a half-life. Every fact gets a date and source.

5. Distinguish facts from inference

Use clear language:

• "X stated Y on date Z" → fact
• "X likely…" → inference (with reasoning)
• "X may…" → speculation (mark explicitly)

Standard data sources

Professional

• LinkedIn (own MCP or manual)
• Organisation websites
• Company registries (public)
• Academic profiles (Google Scholar, ORCID, ResearchGate)

Publications

• Google Scholar / Scopus
• News archives
• Personal blog/website
• Government Hansard / parliamentary records

Digital presence

• Bluesky / Mastodon (public profiles)
• LinkedIn posts
• YouTube / podcast appearances
• Conference presentations

Public registries (jurisdiction-specific — configure per project)

• Companies House (UK) / SEC EDGAR (US) / similar national registries
• Sanctions lists (OFAC, EU, UK)
• Court records (where public)
• Property registries (where public and licensed for use)

Workflow

Phase 1: scope

Define:

• Investigation purpose (meeting prep / due diligence / journalism / security)
• Required sections
• Time-bound (how recent / how far back)
• Sensitivity (what to deliberately NOT investigate)

Phase 2: gather

Per section, collect from designated sources. Log source + date for every claim.

Phase 3: verify

For each claim:

• Independent confirmation?
• Date of verification
• Reliability rating (verified / uncorroborated / disputed)

Phase 4: structure

Write the profile per the section template (below). Use wikilinks for entities.

Phase 5: assess

• What's solid?
• What's uncertain?
• What's inference vs. fact?
• What couldn't be found?

Phase 6: deliver

Profile document with:

• Frontmatter metadata
• Per-section table of facts
• Source list at end
• Caveats and gaps

Output template (excerpt)

---
type: person-profile
subject: [Name]
purpose: [investigation purpose]
created: YYYY-MM-DD
updated: YYYY-MM-DD
sections_completed: [A, B, C]
---

# [[Name]]

## A. Identity
| Field | Value | Source | Verified |
|-------|-------|--------|----------|
| Full name | ... | LinkedIn | ☑ |
| DOB | (only if public) | ... | ☐ |

## B. Professional background

### Current
- **Role:** ...
- **Organization:** [[Org]]
- **Since:** YYYY-MM
- **Source:** [link]

### Previous
[Chronological table]

## C. Public statements
[Listed with date, outlet, key claim]

## D. Organizational network
[Board roles, memberships]

## E. Digital presence
[Per platform]

## Sources
[Numbered, with dates and URLs]

## Gaps and caveats
- [What couldn't be found]
- [Uncertainties]

Ethical limits

• No harassment vectors. No information that primarily enables targeting.
• Public-interest test. For private citizens: justify why a profile is needed.
• Right of reply. If publishing claims about a person: consider whether they can respond.
• Time decay. Information older than 5 years is weakly evidential for current state.
• Aggregation harm. Individually public facts may be invasive in aggregate. Be deliberate.

Anti-patterns

• Speculating about psychology, beliefs, or motives without quoted sources
• Mapping family members beyond explicit public roles
• Using private-sphere social media without strong justification
• Treating one source as definitive
• Skipping verification for "obvious" claims

Integration with other skills

• financial-osint for company/ownership analysis
• osint-network when extending to broader network
• social-researcher agent for digital presence (Section E)
• person-researcher agent for sections A-B (writes directly to document)

---

🎯 COMPLETED: [SKILL:person-osint] [profile of X completed] 🗣️ CUSTOM COMPLETED: [SKILL:person-osint] [Person profile ready]