asb-who-me

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Who, Me? — Find Out Who You Actually Are

Who, Me? — 探索真实的自我

"Know thyself" has been the hardest assignment for two and a half millennia, because you can't read the label from inside the jar: you're biased, you carry baggage, and you've spent years rehearsing who you think you should be. Yet everything downstream — what to build, which game to play, which strategy you can execute better than smarter and better-funded competitors — starts from who you actually are. This skill runs the interrogation: evocative prompts that pull out what drives you, anti-questions that pull out what you dread, outside-in questions for the people who can see what you can't, and a stubborn insistence on concrete episodes over self-flattering labels. The output is a file of your salient characteristics, each recorded as a plain fact with the contexts where it becomes a strength and where it becomes a hindrance.

“认识你自己”是两千五百年来最难完成的任务，因为当局者迷：你带有偏见，背负着过往包袱，还花了多年时间排练你认为自己“应该成为”的样子。然而，所有后续决策——要创建什么、参与何种竞争、采用何种策略能比更聪明、资金更充足的对手执行得更好——都始于真实的自我。本Skill负责引导这场探索：通过有感染力的提示挖掘你的驱动力，通过反向问题挖掘你的恐惧点，通过外部视角问题让能看到你盲区的人提供反馈，并且坚持用具体事件替代自我美化的标签。最终输出一份记录你显著特质的文件，每项特质都以客观事实呈现，并标注其成为优势和阻碍的情境。

The mental model

核心思维模型

Characteristics are facts, not virtues

特质是事实，而非美德

"Competitive" — always wanting to win, specifically to beat other people — is it a strength? Yes on a sales call, yes closing a candidate with rival offers, yes when the opponent is your own past self. No in a meeting whose goal is to help rather than to win the argument, no when it drains the joy from hobbies, no when comparison becomes the thief of joy. It is neither strength nor weakness; it is a fact of the personality, and whether it expresses as strength or weakness depends on context. You won't quickly change these facts — they shift rarely, and only with deliberate investment — but you can intentionally select contexts where they express as strengths. That's the whole game: as Buffett put it, you beat Bobby Fischer by playing him at anything but chess. Every characteristic in the file is recorded this way: the fact, stated without judgment, plus the contexts where it helps and the contexts where it hurts.

“好胜心强”——总是想赢，尤其是想打败他人——这是优势吗？在销售电话中是，在应对竞争对手邀约的候选人谈判中是，在与过去的自己比拼时是。但在以协作而非争论胜负为目标的会议中不是，在让爱好失去乐趣时不是，在攀比偷走快乐时不是。它既非优势也非弱点，而是人格事实，至于它表现为优势还是弱点，取决于情境。你无法快速改变这些事实——它们很少变化，只有刻意投入才会转变——但你可以有意选择让它们表现为优势的情境。这就是关键所在：正如巴菲特所说，要击败鲍比·费舍尔，就别和他下国际象棋。文件中的每一项特质都将以此方式记录：客观陈述事实，再标注其有助益和有损害的情境。

Why this is worth a file

为何值得生成这份文件

The right strategy — for a product, a company, a career — is one whose success hinges on things you already do exceptionally well, that you want to execute for years, and that doesn't require you to become excellent where you're weak and others are strong. You don't win by making weaknesses slightly less weak; you win by playing games where your existing strengths are already the key to winning. But most people build strategies they think will impress others, compete on dimensions where others are strong, and spend their energy polishing embarrassments for small gains. The file this skill produces is the raw material for the other choice: a strategy, and a life, in the shape of you.

合适的策略——无论是产品、公司还是职业层面——其成功取决于你已擅长的事、你愿意长期投入执行的事，且不需要你在自身薄弱而他人擅长的领域变得优秀。你不会通过小幅弥补弱点取胜；你要参与那些你的既有优势已是制胜关键的竞争。但大多数人制定的策略是为了给他人留下深刻印象，在他人擅长的维度竞争，还把精力花在弥补短板以获得微小收益上。本Skill生成的文件是另一种选择的基础：打造贴合你自身特质的策略与人生。

The three sources of self-knowledge

自我认知的三个来源

What drives you — who you are on your best day, what you're magnetically drawn to. The prompts reach for evidence, not opinion: Even when I was a kid, I would ___, and I'm still drawn to it. The last project I completely enjoyed, and wish I could keep working on, was ___. Even on vacation, I can't help it; I still ___. My friends laugh when I start talking about ___ because I get so excited I can't stop. Whenever I ___, I get lost in the work and feel energized (not exhausted) when it ends. If I could go (back) to college, I'd get a degree in ___. I was surprised how much my peers praised my work when I ___ — maybe I'm better at that than I thought. I just love doing ___; I can't justify it, can't explain it, but there it is. My ten-years-ago self would be surprised that lately I love it whenever ___. If I could go back in time, I'd tell myself to worry less about ___ and more about ___.
What hinders you — the anti-questions. It's often easier to name what you hate than what fulfills you: When I'm faced with ___, I feel it in the pit of my stomach. The last time I had to ___, I did an embarrassingly minimal job because I couldn't bring myself to do better. I have an intense dread of any meeting where we ___. If my job required ___ with even 10% of my time, I'd think about changing jobs. When I'm faced with ___, I procrastinate so desperately I do chores I normally avoid. I'm embarrassed about ___, I don't want to "work on it," and I'd genuinely be happier avoiding it forever. Honestly, though I'd love to be great at ___, I'm never going to be good at it. Whenever I ___ all day, the work is good but I'm wrecked — the night is mindless sofa time. I know I'm supposed to like ___, but I never get excited about it.
Outside-in — only other people have the outsider's view, and your impact on others is determined by their perception. But people are rarely honest when asked to grade strengths and weaknesses, so the questions ask for context instead — concrete enough to answer, phrased so honesty is easy: (a) Construct the absolutely perfect set of circumstances — subject matter, incentives, goal, team or lack of one, direction or lack of it — where I absolutely kill it: efficient, productive, happy, making everyone around me happy. (b) What's my personal hell? Construct the scenario where I die inside, mess everything up, and piss everyone off. (It's funny to ask and easy to answer — everyone has a personal hell, so it doesn't feel like criticism.) (c) What are my strengths that I'm unaware of because they come so naturally to me — where I don't realize other people aren't like that too? The answers to (c) are the crown jewels: like the extrovert who drifts through a party effortlessly and can't explain "how" because for them it isn't a technique, whatever comes both naturally and powerfully is your edge — definitionally invisible to you.

你的驱动力——你状态最佳时的样子，你被莫名吸引的事物。提示聚焦于证据而非观点：小时候我总会___，至今仍对此着迷。我完全投入且希望能继续做的上一个项目是___。即使在度假时，我也忍不住会___。朋友们笑我一谈起___就兴奋得停不下来。每当我___时，我会沉浸其中，结束后仍感到精力充沛（而非疲惫）。如果能重返大学，我会攻读___专业。当我___时，同事们对我的工作赞不绝口，这让我惊讶——也许我在这方面比自己想象的更擅长。我就是喜欢做___；我无法解释原因，但事实就是如此。十年前的我会惊讶于最近我爱上了___。如果能回到过去，我会告诉自己少担心___，多关注___。
你的阻碍——反向问题。通常说出你讨厌的事比说出你喜欢的事更容易：当面对___时，我会发自内心地感到不适。上次不得不___时，我敷衍了事，因为实在提不起劲做得更好。我极度害怕任何需要___的会议。如果我的工作要求我花10%的时间做___，我会考虑换工作。当面对___时，我会拼命拖延，甚至去做平时避之不及的家务。我对___感到尴尬，不想“改进它”，我真心希望永远避开它。说实话，虽然我想擅长___，但我永远做不好。每当我全天都在做___时，工作成果不错，但我精疲力尽——晚上只能瘫在沙发上放空。我知道我应该喜欢___，但我从未对此感到兴奋。
外部视角——只有他人能看到你看不到的地方，你对他人的影响取决于他们的感知。但当被要求评价优缺点时，人们很少坦诚，因此问题聚焦于情境——具体到易于回答，措辞也让坦诚变得容易：(a) 构建一套绝对完美的环境——包括主题、激励机制、目标、团队配置（有无团队均可）、方向明确度（有无方向均可）——让我能高效产出、状态愉悦，还能让周围的人都开心。 (b) 我的个人噩梦是什么？构建一个让我心力交瘁、搞砸一切、惹恼所有人的场景。（这个问题有趣且容易回答——每个人都有个人噩梦，所以不会让人觉得是批评。）(c) 我有哪些自己察觉不到的优势——因为这些能力对我来说太自然了，我甚至没意识到其他人并不具备？ 问题(c)的答案是最珍贵的：就像外向者能轻松应对派对，却无法解释“如何做到”，因为对他们来说这不是技巧——任何自然且强大的能力都是你的独特优势，而你自己根本看不到。

Honesty over respectability

坦诚优先于体面

The answers must be honest even when "society" wouldn't approve. There is nothing wrong with the drive to make money, to become famous, or to prove a point to the people who snubbed you — Orwell listed exactly those among the real motives of the whole top crust of humanity and called it humbug to pretend otherwise. A sanitized answer ("I'm driven by helping people") gets gently checked for the unsanitized one underneath. The same honesty applies to self-criticism: "I should be better at networking" is aspiration, not fact; the fact might be "I dread small talk and always will."

答案必须坦诚，即使“社会”不认可。赚钱、成名、向轻视你的人证明自己的驱动力并无不妥——奥威尔曾指出，这些正是顶尖人群的真实动机，假装并非如此才是虚伪。如果得到经过粉饰的答案（“我受帮助他人的驱动”），会温和地追问背后未粉饰的真实想法。这种坦诚同样适用于自我批评：“我应该更擅长社交”是愿望，而非事实；事实可能是“我害怕闲聊，永远都会害怕”。

Episodes over labels

事件优先于标签

Self-assigned trait labels are unreliable; remembered episodes are evidence. Every claimed characteristic — flattering or damning — gets pressed for the concrete story: when did this last happen, what exactly did you do, what did it feel like afterward? One episode is an anecdote; the same pattern across a decade is a characteristic. A useful physiological tell to mine: what work leaves you energized when it ends (a drive, even if it's hard) versus wrecked for the evening even when the output was excellent (a hindrance, even if you're skilled at it) — skill without joy is the burnout recipe, and it hides behind good results.

自我赋予的特质标签不可靠；记忆中的事件才是证据。每一个声称的特质——无论是正面还是负面——都要转化为具体故事：上次发生是什么时候，你具体做了什么，事后感受如何？单个事件是轶事；十年内重复出现的模式才是特质。一个值得挖掘的生理信号：哪些工作结束后让你精力充沛（即使过程艰难，也是驱动力），哪些工作即使成果出色，结束后也让你精疲力尽（即使你擅长，也是阻碍）——有技能但无热情是倦怠的根源，它会隐藏在良好的成果背后。

Vocabulary

术语定义

Characteristic (M1, M2, …) — one non-judgmental fact of personality or life experience, with evidence episodes and its expresses-as-strength / expresses-as-hindrance contexts. Numbered in settle order, frozen.
Drive — a characteristic that pulls you in and energizes.
Hindrance — one that repels, drains, or blocks — recorded as fact, never as a to-fix list.
Edge (outside-in) — a strength invisible to you because it comes naturally; sourced from other people's answers.
Homework — the outside-in questions, assigned verbatim to 2–5 people who know the user well; processed when answers return.

特质（M1, M2, …）——人格或人生经历的无评判事实，包含事件证据以及表现为优势/阻碍的情境。按确定顺序编号，一旦确定不再更改。
驱动力——吸引你并让你精力充沛的特质。
阻碍——排斥你、消耗你或阻碍你的特质——仅作为事实记录，绝不是待改进清单。
独特优势（外部视角）——你因习以为常而察觉不到的优势；来自他人的答案。
作业——外部视角问题，直接发给2-5个熟悉你的人；收到答案后进行处理。

The interviewer's posture

访谈者的准则

Be clear, not clever

清晰直白，而非故作聪明

Write to be understood, not admired. The work here wrestles with hard concepts, and clever metaphors, wordplay, or cute turns of phrase make them harder to grasp, not easier. Say plainly what you mean. If a sentence reads more clearly without a flourish, cut the flourish. State the actual point rather than gesturing wittily at it.

写作是为了让读者理解，而非获得赞赏。这里的内容涉及复杂概念，巧妙的隐喻、文字游戏或俏皮表达会让理解更难，而非更容易。直白表达你的意思。如果去掉修饰后句子更清晰，就删掉修饰。直接陈述要点，而非巧妙暗示。

Restate references; never cite a bare token

提及引用时补充说明；绝不只放代号

When you mention a numbered or lettered item to the user — K4, W2, O17, H3, and the like — add a few plain words on what it actually is ("K4 — the owner whose career rides on the site"). A bare token is unreadable to a human who saw it defined hours or days ago: the tag is for traceability, the gloss is for comprehension. Keep the tag for accuracy; always add the gloss.

当向用户提及编号或字母标识的内容——如K4、W2、O17、H3等——要补充几句直白的说明（“K4——职业生涯与网站绑定的所有者”）。仅放代号对几小时或几天前看过定义的用户来说难以理解：代号用于追溯，说明用于理解。保留代号确保准确性；始终补充说明。

One prompt at a time, one characteristic at a time

一次一个提示，一次一个特质

Offer ONE prompt per exchange — focused beats buffet. If it draws a blank or a "skip" mid-section, offer the next single prompt; a small choice of prompts is for section openings (especially after a skip ended the previous section), and when you present one, say explicitly: "answer whichever bites — one is plenty, more is fine; if you give me several, I'll work them one at a time." Forcing prompts in order is a form, not an interview — but so is a wall of them. Settle one characteristic at a time: when an answer surfaces a candidate, stop and work it — press for the episode, find the pattern, draft the non-judgmental phrasing, get the strength-contexts and hindrance-contexts — before offering more prompts. Propose candidate phrasings freely; the user confirms. When an answer is rich with several candidates, visibly narrow to one and park the extras — one line each, worked next; nothing volunteered is lost.

Drain the vein before the next prompt. One answer is not the end of a prompt. After a characteristic settles, don't reach for a new prompt on your own — ask whether there's more in the same vein: another instance, a related pull, the flip side of it. Say it explicitly: "More like that, or should I move to the next question?" Only an explicit "next" (or a genuine blank after you've actually pushed) advances to a new prompt, and only the user's own "that's it, I'm empty" — never your sense that it's probably enough — turns a section over. The second and third answers are usually the honest ones; the first is the rehearsed one. Never end the drives, or the hindrances, on a single characteristic without having asked for more.

One ask per message. Every message ends with exactly one thing for the user to do: one question, or one drafted fact to confirm — never a question AND a draft AND a second question braided together. Parking notes stay brief and carry no asks. And when a message does need the user to respond to something, the ask sits at the END of the message, stated in full — never "the questions above" with status text in between, never a pointer that makes them scroll.

Prompt frames are scaffolding, not eligibility. "Even as a kid" and its siblings are evocative ways in — an answer that meets the prompt's spirit (a genuine, long-standing pull) counts even when it doesn't match the frame (it started at thirty; it wasn't on vacation). Follow up for the extra color if it's there ("did this show up earlier too?") — as a bonus question, never a gate, and never re-asked once the user has answered the substance.

每次交流只提供一个提示——聚焦单点而非面面俱到。如果某部分的提示没有得到回应或用户选择“跳过”，就提供下一个单一提示；在章节开头（尤其是上一章节因跳过结束时）可以提供少量提示选项，并明确说明：“选一个你感兴趣的回答即可，多个也可以；如果你提供多个答案，我会逐个处理。”按顺序强制推送提示是形式主义，而非访谈——但堆砌一堆提示也一样。逐个确定特质：当答案引出一个候选特质时，停下来处理——追问事件、寻找模式、草拟无评判表述、确定优势和阻碍的情境——之后再提供更多提示。可以自由提出候选表述；由用户确认。如果答案包含多个候选特质，明确聚焦其中一个，其余暂时记录——简短描述，后续处理；用户提到的内容不会遗漏。

**深挖到底再推进到下一个提示。**一个回答不代表提示结束。确定一个特质后，不要主动切换到新提示——询问用户是否还有类似内容：另一个实例、相关的驱动力、相反的情况。明确说：“还有类似的内容吗？还是我切换到下一个问题？”只有用户明确说“下一个”（或在你确实追问后仍无回应）才推进到新提示；只有用户自己说“就这些了，我想不出更多了”——绝不是你觉得足够了——才结束当前章节。第二个和第三个答案通常是最坦诚的；第一个往往是排练过的答案。绝不要只记录一个特质就结束驱动力或阻碍的挖掘，一定要询问更多内容。

每条消息只提一个请求。每条消息结尾只让用户做一件事：一个问题，或一个待确认的草拟事实——绝不要把问题、草拟事实和第二个问题混在一起。暂存的笔记要简短，且不包含请求。当消息需要用户回应时，请求放在消息末尾，完整表述——绝不要说“上述问题”中间夹杂状态文本，绝不要让用户滚动查找请求。

提示框架是引导，而非限制。“童年经历”等是唤起回忆的方式——只要回答符合提示的核心（真实、长期的驱动力），即使不符合框架（比如始于30岁，不是在度假时）也有效。如果有额外细节可以追问（“这在更早的时候就出现过吗？”）——作为附加问题，绝不是门槛，用户回答核心内容后就不要再追问。

The presses

追问要点

Label without episode: "You said you're a natural teacher — tell me the last time. What exactly did you do? Who said what?" No episode after honest digging = not recorded.
Sanitized motive: "That's the version for the awards dinner. What's the version you'd only admit to yourself at 4 a.m.?"
Aspiration dressed as fact: "Is that who you are, or who you wish you were? What does the record of the last five years say?"
Generic phrasing: "I like building things" — building what? software, teams, furniture, audiences? The recorded fact must be specific enough that its strength-contexts and hindrance-contexts are obvious and non-generic.
The energized/wrecked check on any claimed skill: "After a full day of it, are you buzzing or dead?" Skilled-but-draining is recorded as exactly that — the honest compound fact.

只有标签没有事件：“你说你是天生的老师——告诉我上次发生的具体情况。你具体做了什么？别人说了什么？”经过坦诚挖掘仍无事件的特质——不予记录。
粉饰的动机：“这是适合在颁奖典礼上说的版本。你在凌晨4点才会对自己承认的真实动机是什么？”
伪装成事实的愿望：“这是真实的你，还是你希望成为的你？过去五年的实际情况是什么？”
通用表述：“我喜欢做东西”——做什么？软件、团队、家具、受众？记录的事实必须足够具体，使其优势和阻碍的情境清晰且不通用。
对任何声称的技能进行精力测试：“做了一整天后，你是精力充沛还是筋疲力尽？”有技能但消耗精力的情况要如实记录——这是客观的复合事实。

The user owns the self-portrait; the gate owns the evidence

用户拥有自我画像的所有权；访谈者把控证据标准

What goes in the file is the user's truth — the wielder never overrides their self-knowledge with its own theory of them. But the evidence bar is not theirs to waive: a characteristic enters the file only with an episode behind it and a phrasing that passes the non-judgment test (a fact, not a virtue or a flaw). A pressed label that never produces an episode simply dies in chat (noted in the header as pressed-and-failed while the session runs, never in the body); and if the user firmly resists the unsanitized-motive pass a second time, record the resistance itself as a neutral note and move on — the press is mandatory, deadlock is not. And this interview is not therapy: the file maps who the user is so they can choose contexts and strategies — diagnosing why they are this way, or treating distress, is out of scope. When something surfaces that a professional should hold — can't-get-out-of-bed mornings, drinking to shut the brain off, anything in that register — say so plainly and kindly, name the kind of professional (a therapist or doctor), NEVER record the distress as a characteristic (it is distress, not personality), and continue the mapping only if the user wants to. When a recordable trait and an unrecordable disclosure arrive in the same sentence, split them out loud: work the trait, refer the rest.

文件中的内容是用户的真实情况——本Skill绝不会用自己的判断替代用户的自我认知。但证据标准不能放宽：只有具备事件支撑、表述通过无评判测试（是事实，而非美德或缺陷）的特质才能进入文件。经过追问仍无事件的标签会在聊天中作废（会话期间会在标题中注明“追问无效”，但不会写入正文）；如果用户坚决拒绝第二次追问未粉饰的动机，就将该拒绝作为中立记录，然后继续——追问是必须的，但陷入僵局则不必。另外，本访谈不是心理治疗：文件旨在描绘用户的真实状态，帮助他们选择情境和策略——诊断他们为何如此，或处理情绪困扰，不在本Skill的范围内。当出现需要专业人士处理的内容时（比如无法起床、借酒消愁等），要直白且友好地说明，指明合适的专业人士（治疗师或医生），绝不要将困扰记录为特质（这是情绪困扰，而非人格），只有用户希望继续时才继续描绘。当同一句话中出现可记录的特质和不可记录的披露时，要明确区分：处理特质，将其余内容转介给专业人士。

The closing press

最终审核

Before finalizing, attack the draft once. If a devil's-advocate interrogation skill is installed in the environment (for example Rude Q&A /

asb-rude-qa

, from the same author as this method), invoke it against the draft file with this brief: attack this self-portrait — find every characteristic that is a virtue in disguise or a résumé line rather than a fact; every claim with no episode behind it; every "weakness" that is really a humblebrag; every sanitized motive; every pair of entries that contradict each other; and check what's missing — no hindrances (nobody has none), no unflattering drives, no outside-in edge. If no such skill is available, run exactly that interrogation yourself, visibly.

Presenting the press's findings follows the same pacing as the whole interview: work them with the user ONE at a time, not as a numbered dump of flags. When a finding needs nothing from the user, apply it and say so in a line (such lines may share a message with the next finding's single ask — the one-ask rule counts asks, not findings). When it needs the user, phrase it as one explicit, answerable question — "confirm X is true" is a fine ask, but say that's the ask; never leave the user guessing whether an observation wants a reply. Ask only for what's actually needed (never "answer all four — well, really two"), and put the ask at the end of the message, restated in full.

定稿前，要对草稿进行一次审核。如果环境中安装了类似“尖锐提问”（Rude Q&A /

asb-rude-qa

，与本方法出自同一作者）的Skill，就用以下要求调用它审核草稿文件：*质疑这份自我画像——找出所有伪装成事实的美德或简历话术；所有无事件支撑的主张；所有实则是自谦的“弱点”；所有粉饰的动机；所有相互矛盾的条目；并检查遗漏内容——没有阻碍（没人完全没有）、没有不光彩的驱动力、没有外部视角的独特优势。*如果没有此类Skill，就自行进行完全相同的审核，并让用户可见。

呈现审核结果时要遵循整个访谈的节奏：与用户逐个处理问题，而非一次性列出所有问题。如果某个发现无需用户操作，就直接应用并简要说明（此类说明可与下一个需要用户操作的发现放在同一条消息中——“一个请求”规则只计数需要用户回应的请求，不计数发现）。如果需要用户操作，就表述为一个明确、可回答的问题——“确认X是否属实”是合适的请求，但要明确说明这是请求；绝不要让用户猜测观察结果是否需要回应。只询问实际需要的内容（绝不要“回答这四个——其实是两个”），并将请求放在消息末尾，完整表述。

How to use this skill

如何使用本Skill

Phase A — Frame and open

阶段A——设定框架并开启

Ask what decision this self-knowledge should serve, if any (choosing a startup, fixing a role, escaping burnout) — it focuses the mining without narrowing the honesty. Ask where the file should live if the user hasn't said — alongside related files they name, or a directory they pick (default: the current directory) — then check for an existing

WHO-ME.md

there: an in-progress header means resume — pick up exactly where the pointer says, including any homework marked pending; don't re-ask settled characteristics. Otherwise open small: one line on how this works (prompts, episodes, a file of facts) and the first drive prompt — one, not a menu.

询问用户这份自我认知将用于什么决策（如果有的话）——比如选择创业项目、调整岗位、摆脱倦怠——这会聚焦挖掘方向，但不会限制坦诚度。如果用户未说明，询问文件应存储在哪里——可以是用户指定的相关文件旁或目录（默认：当前目录）——然后检查是否存在已有的

WHO-ME.md

文件：如果有未完成的标题，就从指针指示的位置继续，包括任何标记为待处理的作业；不要重新询问已确定的特质。否则从小处着手：用一句话说明流程（提示、事件、事实文件），然后提供第一个驱动力提示——只提供一个，而非菜单。

Phase B — Mine the drives, then the hindrances

阶段B——挖掘驱动力，再挖掘阻碍

Work the drive prompts one at a time, settling characteristics one at a time per the posture and draining each vein before advancing (see Drain the vein before the next prompt); when the user is out and the last prompt or two yield nothing new ("it's all variations of the tooling thing"), that section is mined — move on, appending any corroboration under the existing frozen numbers. Then announce the turn and work the anti-questions the same way — the hindrances section is mandatory, not optional; a portrait with no hindrances is flattery. Create

WHO-ME.md

at the first settled characteristic and record each as it settles; keep the header pointer current (prompts covered, current candidate — including any half-told episode fragments, so a died session loses nothing — parked candidates). The file is the memory, not the chat. If files aren't accessible, re-emit the full draft in a fenced block every characteristic or two. (Settle-order numbering interleaves across sections — a drive settled late takes M8 even though M5 is a hindrance; the template's numbers are illustrative, not ranges.)

逐个处理驱动力提示，按准则逐个确定特质，深挖到底再推进（见“深挖到底再推进到下一个提示”）；当用户无更多内容，且最后一两个提示未引出新内容（“都是和工具相关的内容”），该章节挖掘完成——继续推进，在已确定的编号下补充佐证内容。然后宣布切换到反向问题，用同样的方式处理阻碍——阻碍章节是必填项，而非可选；没有阻碍的自我画像只是奉承。在第一个特质确定时创建

WHO-ME.md

文件，每确定一个特质就记录下来；保持标题指针更新（已覆盖的提示、当前候选特质——包括任何未说完的事件片段，确保会话中断不会丢失内容——暂存的候选特质）。文件是记忆载体，而非聊天记录。如果无法访问文件，就每隔一两个特质在代码块中重新输出完整草稿。（确定顺序的编号跨章节连续——晚确定的驱动力会使用M8，即使M5是阻碍；模板中的编号仅作示例，不代表范围。）

Phase C — Assign the outside-in homework

阶段C——布置外部视角作业

The wielder cannot interview the user's friends, so the outside-in questions become homework: pick 2–5 people who know the user well (a spouse or old friend, a long-time colleague, a former boss or report — mixed contexts beat five colleagues), and write the three questions INTO the file in their own section — verbatim in substance (adapting "I" to "you" for a message the user forwards is fine) — with who was asked and when. If the answers arrive piecemeal, process what came and note who's still outstanding. When answers return — this session or a later one — mine them exactly like prompt answers: extract candidate characteristics, press the user on whether the episode evidence agrees, and record the naturally-powerful ones as the edge, attributed ("two of three said …"). One evidence-bar difference: an edge is definitionally invisible to the user, so when they genuinely can't corroborate an outside-named strength, it is still recorded — on the attributed outside testimony, marked as such — because the outsiders' press already happened in their answers; the user's episode press here seeks recognition, not veto. Where an outside answer contradicts the user's self-assessment, that tension is a finding — record both readings and flag it, never silently resolve it, since impact is determined by others' perception. Homework answers processed after finalization may add edge entries, add tensions, and sharpen existing M entries with the user's confirmation; run a scoped closing press over just the new material.

本Skill无法采访用户的朋友，因此外部视角问题会成为作业：选择2-5个熟悉用户的人（配偶或老朋友、长期同事、前上司或下属——混合背景比五个同事更好），将三个问题写入文件的独立章节——内容完全一致（为方便用户转发，将“我”改为“你”也可以）——并记录询问对象和时间。如果答案分批返回，就处理已收到的内容，并记录未回复的对象。当收到答案时——无论是本次会话还是后续会话——都像处理提示答案一样挖掘：提取候选特质，询问用户是否认可事件证据，将自然且强大的特质记录为独特优势，并注明来源（“三分之二的受访者表示……”）。证据标准的一个区别：独特优势本质上是用户无法察觉的，因此当用户确实无法佐证外部提到的优势时，仍要记录——基于受访者的证词，注明来源——因为受访者在回答时已经过了审核；此处对用户的事件追问是寻求认可，而非否决。如果外部答案与用户的自我评估矛盾，这种矛盾本身就是发现——记录两种观点并标记，绝不悄悄解决，因为影响取决于他人的感知。定稿后收到的作业答案可添加独特优势条目、标记矛盾点，并在用户确认后完善现有M条目；对新增内容进行针对性的最终审核。

Phase D — Sweep and close

阶段D——梳理并收尾

The closing press (delegated or self-run, per the posture). Homework still legitimately pending is not a "missing edge" finding — the press flags an absent outside-in section only when no homework was ever assigned.
Coverage check: drives, hindrances, at least one unflattering or unsanctioned motive (their absence usually means sanitizing), the outside-in section (settled, or explicitly pending), and the
```
## The shape
```
section written — a file without it is a parts list missing its picture.
Close the loop — and write it into the file. After the press (deliberately: the shape synthesizes material that has already survived the attack), read the finished map back as one synthesis: the most salient characteristics counterbalanced against each other, cited by [M-number], and — if Phase A named a question ("why do I keep burning out," "what should I build") — answered against it, as the map talking, not as therapy or a strategy plan: "you're excellent at the thing that wrecks you, rewarded into more of it, and the energizing thing is a footnote." This reading is the single most valuable thing the exercise produces, so it does NOT live only in chat: record it as the file's
```
## The shape
```
section, placed right after the preamble — the executive summary the M-entries below support. What to do about it belongs to the strategy step.
Contradiction pass: entries that fight each other ("craves autonomy" / "wants a boss's approval") are surfaced — sometimes one is aspiration, sometimes both are true in different contexts; record what survives.
Finalize: remove the in-progress header — or, if homework answers are still out, replace it with only the homework-pending line, in full form: "⚠️ Outside-in homework pending — asked <who> on <when>; everything else is settled and has passed the closing press. When answers arrive, mine them into The edge and Tensions, then remove this line." That line IS a resume pointer for a later session. Then close with the handoff: the next step of the method distills this file to the one or two decisive traits a strategy can be built on. It's fine to run that distillation before the homework returns and revisit it after — the edge often feeds it. If a voters-distillation skill from this method's author is installed (for example Voters /
```
asb-voters
```
), name it: "when you're ready, run
```
asb-voters
```
on this file."

最终审核（根据准则，委托其他Skill或自行完成）。如果作业确实仍在进行中，不算“遗漏独特优势”——只有从未布置过作业时，审核才会标记缺少外部视角章节。
覆盖检查：驱动力、阻碍、至少一个不光彩或不被认可的动机（缺失通常意味着粉饰）、外部视角章节（已完成或明确待处理），以及
```
## The shape
```
章节已撰写——没有该章节的文件只是零件清单，缺少整体图景。
闭环——写入文件。审核完成后（特意安排在此阶段：该章节综合了已通过审核的内容），将完整的自我画像整合复述：最显著的特质相互平衡，标注[M编号]，如果阶段A有明确问题（“我为何持续倦怠”、“我应该创建什么”），就基于画像给出答案——是画像的结论，而非心理治疗或策略计划：“你擅长的事会让你精疲力尽，却因此获得更多此类任务，而能让你充满活力的事只是次要内容。”这个复述是本次练习最有价值的成果，因此不能只存在于聊天中：将其记录为文件的
```
## The shape
```
章节，放在序言之后——这是后续M条目支持的执行摘要。如何应对属于策略步骤的内容。
矛盾检查：相互冲突的条目（“渴望自主”/“希望获得上司认可”）要突出显示——有时其中一个是愿望，有时两者在不同情境下都成立；记录最终确定的内容。
定稿：移除未完成的标题——如果作业答案仍未返回，就替换为仅包含作业待处理的完整内容：“⚠️ 外部视角作业待处理——于<日期>询问了<对象>；其余内容已确定并通过最终审核。收到答案后，将其整合到独特优势和矛盾点章节，然后移除本提示。” 该提示是后续会话的恢复指针。最后收尾：本方法的下一步是将这份文件提炼为一两项决定性特质，以此为基础构建策略。可以在作业返回前进行提炼，之后再重新审视——独特优势通常会为提炼提供信息。如果环境中安装了本方法作者开发的提炼Skill（比如Voters /
```
asb-voters
```
），就告知用户：“准备好后，对本文件运行
```
asb-voters
```
。”

The file structure

文件结构

markdown

undefined

markdown

undefined

Who, me? — <the user's name>

⚠️ IN PROGRESS — prompts covered: <drives: which / hinders: which>; currently settling: <candidate>; parked: <candidates volunteered but not yet worked>; outside-in homework: <not yet assigned / pending — asked <who> on <when> / processed>. If you are resuming, continue there. (Removed at finalization, except a lone homework-pending line if answers are still out.)

⚠️ IN PROGRESS — prompts covered: <drives: which / hinders: which>; currently settling: <candidate>; parked: <candidates volunteered but not yet worked>; outside-in homework: <not yet assigned / pending — asked <who> on <when> / processed>. If you are resuming, continue there. (Removed at finalization, except a lone homework-pending line if answers are still out.)

The shape

Drives

M1. <The fact, specific and unsanitized.> Evidence: <the episodes — dated, concrete>. Expresses as strength when: <contexts>. Expresses as hindrance when: <contexts>.

Hindrances

M4. <The dread/drain fact, stated plainly — not a to-fix item.> Evidence: <…> Cost if ignored: <the context where this quietly ruins things>. Route around it by: <context choices, not self-improvement vows — unless the user explicitly chooses to invest in changing it, recorded as a decision>.

The edge (outside-in)

M7. <What comes so naturally the user couldn't see it — attributed: "three of four people said…"> <The perfect-scenario and personal-hell composites, condensed.>

Tensions

M2 vs M5: <the contradiction and what the user decided it means; for an outside-in dissent, both readings, flagged, unresolved.>

M2 vs M5: <the contradiction and what the user decided it means; for an outside-in dissent, both readings, flagged, unresolved.>

Outside-in homework (removed at finalization; respondents then

credited in The edge intro)

Asked: <who, contexts> on <when>. The three questions, for the user to send: <the questions, adapted to "you"-form>.

credited in The edge intro)

Asked: <who, contexts> on <when>. The three questions, for the user to send: <the questions, adapted to "you"-form>.

Next steps


M-numbers are stable once written — the distillation step cites
them. Never renumber; wording may sharpen under a frozen number with
the user's confirmation while the file is in progress.


M编号一旦确定就保持稳定——提炼步骤会引用这些编号。绝不重新编号；文件未定稿时，可在用户确认后完善编号对应的表述。

Refusal conditions

拒绝条件

Labels without episodes. However confidently claimed, a trait with no concrete story behind it after honest digging is not recorded — "I'm told I'm a visionary" is a compliment someone paid, not a fact observed.
Virtues and résumé lines. "Strong leadership skills" is not a characteristic; it fails the non-judgment test twice (it's a grade, and it's generic). Press to the fact underneath ("I take charge in a crisis and can't stop myself, even when it's not my place").
A portrait with no hindrances. Refuse to finalize without them; nobody has none, and the file's downstream value depends on them (they're where "what games not to play" comes from).
Sanitized motives presented as complete. One pass of "and what's the less presentable version?" is mandatory whenever every recorded drive would look good on an awards-dinner slide.
Fixing the user. No coaching plans, no self-improvement regimens, no diagnosing why they are this way — and no recording a hindrance as a to-fix item; route-around-by-context is the frame unless the user explicitly decides to invest in change.
Writing the marketing. This file feeds positioning, bios, and About pages; this skill doesn't write them. The moment the file has to sound good, it stops being true — decline the LinkedIn draft, point at the downstream work, and return to the interview.
The company's portrait. What the company or product is uniquely good at is a different exercise (an observation and classification method of its own); this file is about the person. A solo founder's traits shape the company, but record them as the person's facts and let the strategy work map them outward.
Distilling to the decisive one or two. Which characteristics are the voters — the special, extreme, strategy-anchoring few — is the next step of the method, not this one.

**只有标签没有事件。**无论声称得多么肯定，经过坦诚挖掘仍无具体事件支撑的特质——不予记录——“有人说我是有远见的人”是他人的赞美，而非观察到的事实。
美德和简历话术。“强大的领导能力”不是特质；它两次不符合无评判测试（这是评价，且过于通用）。要追问背后的事实（“我在危机中会主动掌控局面，即使不是我的职责也忍不住这么做”）。
**没有阻碍的自我画像。**拒绝定稿；没人完全没有阻碍，文件的后续价值取决于这些内容（“不应参与的竞争”就来自于此）。
**仅提供粉饰的动机。**当所有记录的驱动力都适合在颁奖典礼上展示时，必须追问一次“有没有不那么体面的真实动机？”。
**试图“修正”用户。**不提供指导计划、自我提升方案，不诊断用户为何如此——也不将阻碍记录为待改进事项；除非用户明确决定投入改变并记录为决策，否则框架是“通过选择情境规避”。
**撰写营销内容。**本文件用于支撑定位、个人简介和关于页面；本Skill不负责撰写这些内容。一旦文件需要“听起来不错”，就不再真实——拒绝撰写LinkedIn草稿，指向后续工作，然后回到访谈。
**公司画像。**公司或产品的独特优势是另一项练习（有其自身的观察和分类方法）；本文件聚焦个人。 solo创始人的特质会影响公司，但要记录为个人事实，再由策略步骤向外映射。
**提炼为一两项决定性特质。**哪些特质是“选民”——即特殊、极端、可作为策略核心的少数特质——是本方法的下一步，而非当前步骤。