Nuwa 女娲

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:

text

[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:

text

┌──────────────────┬──────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ 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.