edge-profiler

name	edge-profiler
description	Extracts and structures a user's skills, assets, access, constraints, credibility, and usable versus restricted edge into a reusable founder profile. Use when planning businesses, ranking opportunities, validating founder-market fit, or whenever later skills need a clean profile instead of raw conversation.
compatibility	Works best with read/search tools and benefits from conversational follow-up when user context is thin.
metadata	{"author":"opencode","version":"0.1"}

Edge Profiler

Overview

This skill turns messy user background into a reusable founder-edge profile. The goal is not to flatter the user. The goal is to separate real edge from weak, restricted, or unusable edge so later skills can reason from something solid.

Treat edge as four different things, not one bucket:

• usable_edge
• restricted_or_unusable_edge
• fake_or_overstated_edge
• missing_edge

Load references/profile-dimensions.md when filling the profile in detail. Load references/intake-questions.md when the user context is thin or vague.

When to use

• When a user wants business ideas, monetization paths, or opportunity ranking
• When a later skill needs a clean profile instead of raw conversation history
• When the user gives a long background and the important advantages need to be extracted cleanly
• When founder-market fit, distribution quality, or constraint realism are central to the task

Do NOT use when:

• The user already has a clean structured profile and only needs execution on a chosen idea
• The task is purely implementation and the user's background is irrelevant

Workflow

1. Extract evidence from the conversation

Pull concrete evidence from what the user actually said. Do not invent stronger credentials, access, or buyer trust than the prompt supports.

Capture at least:

• Skills
• Domain experience
• Assets
• Distribution
• Network access
• Constraints
• Credibility signals
• Unfair advantages

2. Distinguish usable edge from restricted edge

Separate the profile into:

• usable_edge
• restricted_or_unusable_edge

Restricted or unusable edge includes things like:

• Employer-confidential information
• Customer access the user cannot legally monetize
• Regulated authority the user does not control
• Weak signals dressed up as strong edge

If the user's only apparent moat is restricted, say so plainly.

3. Identify fake or overstated edge

Some signals sound impressive but do not create commercial leverage by themselves.

Common examples:

• follower count without buyer quality
• employer-mediated access that is not independently owned
• prestige brands or smart peers without route to customers
• broad market familiarity without trust, access, or distribution

Do not inflate these into moat. Put them under fake_or_overstated_edge or weak_spots.

4. Fill gaps without flattering

If the profile is incomplete, ask up to 5 short follow-up questions.

If niche, buyer access, or distribution quality is weak or unclear, spend most of those questions on wedge discovery before concluding what the user's real usable edge is. Do not default to assumptions when the missing information is the route to customers.

Only proceed with assumptions when follow-up is genuinely impossible or the user explicitly declines more questions. In that case, state clearly that the profile is provisional and that any opportunity recommendation should be treated as lower confidence.

Do not confuse:

• follower count with buyer quality
• industry familiarity with permission to act
• technical skill with distribution
• interest with edge
• prestige with buyer access
• introductions with durable distribution

For every claimed edge, pressure-test it with these questions:

• Is it owned?
• Is it legal to use?
• Is it buyer-relevant?
• Is it repeatable?
• Is it independent of the user's employer?

Mandatory deeper intake trigger:

If the user has strong skills but weak or unclear niche, buyer access, or distribution, ask targeted follow-up in these categories before finalizing the profile:

• reachable buyer segment
• repeated painful workflow
• prior trust, referrals, or pull signals
• owned distribution or warm-path quality
• clean-room-safe relationships and assets
• willingness to start with a service or concierge wedge

Keep this to 3-5 total questions, but make them decision-critical. Prefer questions that collapse uncertainty about who the first buyer is, why they would care, and how the user can reach them legally and independently.

5. Produce the reusable profile

Return both:

• a human-readable profile summary
• a JSON block using assets/profile-template.json

Use the template field names exactly. This skill is meant to feed later skills, so schema consistency matters.

Default human-readable sections:

• Profile Summary
• Usable Edge
• Restricted Edge
• Fake or Overstated Edge
• Weak Spots
• Follow-Up Questions
• Structured Profile

Substance requirements:

• Identify at least one real advantage or say the edge is weak
• Identify restricted edge when it exists
• Be explicit about buyer/distribution quality, not just audience size
• Name the top missing information if it materially affects later decisions
• If something sounds impressive but is not monetizable, call that out directly
• Keep restricted materials out of user_profile.assets; put them only in restricted_or_unusable_edge
• Keep fake or overstated edge out of usable_edge and unfair_advantages

Checklist

• The profile uses concrete evidence from the user, not flattering guesses
• Usable edge and restricted edge are separated clearly
• Fake or overstated edge is called out when present
• Distribution quality is assessed, not just reach or follower count
• The user's constraints are explicit
• If niche or distribution was weak, follow-up questions probed for a reachable buyer and repeated pain before concluding on usable edge
• The response includes both readable summary and structured JSON

Examples

Example:

Input: I run a 20k newsletter for private practice accountants. People trust me, but most readers are operators, not owners. I know their workflow pain well. I also have internal templates from my employer, but I cannot reuse them.

Output: A profile that marks the newsletter as a real distribution asset but buyer quality as mixed, records workflow knowledge as usable edge, marks the employer templates as restricted edge, and asks follow-up questions about owner reach and paid buyer access.

{
  "user_profile": {
    "skills": ["editorial packaging", "workflow analysis"],
    "distribution": ["20k niche newsletter"],
    "constraints": ["cannot reuse employer templates"]
  },
  "usable_edge": [
    "Niche audience trust",
    "Real workflow familiarity"
  ],
  "restricted_or_unusable_edge": [
    "Employer-owned templates"
  ],
  "fake_or_overstated_edge": []
}

Common mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Treating industry familiarity as a moat	Ask whether the user has real access, trust, or distribution
Treating employer access as usable edge	Move it to restricted_or_unusable_edge unless clearly usable
Treating follower count as buyer quality	Separate reach from monetizable trust and buyer access
Treating prestige or smart peers as moat	Put it under fake_or_overstated_edge unless it creates buyer leverage
Filling gaps with flattering assumptions	Name uncertainty and ask targeted follow-up

Quick reference

Operation	How
Extract profile	Pull concrete evidence across the core profile dimensions
Separate edge types	Split into usable, restricted, fake/overstated, and missing edge
Handle gaps	Ask short follow-ups or proceed with explicit assumptions
Format result	Human summary plus JSON using assets/profile-template.json

Key principles

1. Evidence over vibes — Profile from what the user actually said, not from optimistic projection.
2. Restricted edge is not usable edge — Employer, legal, or confidentiality limits must stay visible.
3. Distribution quality matters — Reach without buyer trust is not the same as monetizable access.
4. Do not inflate — Prestige, introductions, and vague familiarity do not become moat without evidence.
5. Weak edge is a valid conclusion — Say it when true instead of forcing a stronger story.

Optimization Notes

• Preserve the user's requested output shape exactly and do not substitute generic advice for concrete artifacts.
• Include exact commands, code structures, protocol fields, tags, parameters, file paths, or deliverable sections when the task asks for them.
• Make safety gates explicit before irreversible, destructive, externally visible, or compliance-sensitive actions.
• For multi-step work, present steps in execution order and include validation or rollback checks where relevant.
• Avoid overfitting to a single eval example: express lessons as reusable rules, not as task-specific answers.