dhdna-profiler · diff
v1.2 to v2.0
83 added, 129 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: dhdna-profiler
- description: Applies the DHDNA framework as an exploratory rubric for reasoning and writing patterns in supplied text. Use when the user asks for DHDNA, cognitive-style reflection, a thinking-pattern profile, or comparisons of textual reasoning. Scores describe evidence in the sample, not validated psychological traits or personal identity.
+ description: Applies the DHDNA framework as an exploratory rubric for reasoning and writing patterns in supplied text. Used for explicit requests for DHDNA, cognitive-style reflection, a thinking-pattern profile, or comparisons of textual reasoning. Scores describe evidence in the sample, not validated psychological traits or personal identity.
allowed-tools: Read Write
license: MIT license
metadata:
- version: "1.2"
+ version: "2.0"
+ last-reviewed: "2026-09-30"
skill-author: AHK Strategies (ashrafkahoush-ux)
---
- # DHDNA Profiler — Cognitive Pattern Extraction
-
- An exploratory rubric for describing patterns in a supplied text, based on the Digital Human DNA (DHDNA) framework. Treat its cognitive-fingerprint language as a framework metaphor, not evidence of a unique, stable, or identifiable psychological signature.
-
- Published research: [DHDNA Pre-print (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736629) | [IDNA Consolidation v2 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18807387)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18807387)
+ # DHDNA Profiler — Text Pattern Annotation
- ## Core Concept
+ An exploratory rubric for describing a supplied text using Digital Human DNA (DHDNA) terminology. Its cognitive-fingerprint language is a framework metaphor; it does not establish a unique, stable, or identifiable psychological signature.
- Describe observable reasoning and rhetorical choices in this sample. Genre, task, language proficiency, editing, collaboration, and AI assistance can change those choices. A score is an analyst annotation, not a measurement of the author's cognitive architecture; agreement with framework labels does not establish psychometric validity.
+ Use this workflow for requested reflection on writing. It requires no package, credentials, API call, or MindBook account. It does not reproduce MindBook's scoring engine.
- ## The 12 Cognitive Dimensions
+ ## Sources and scope
- When profiling text, score each dimension on a 1–10 scale based on evidence in the text:
+ The [current publisher page](https://www.ahkstrategies.net/dhdna) names twelve public dimensions as a design vocabulary. The table below maps those names to the existing skill's annotation labels. The observation criteria and score anchors are local conventions, not an upstream validated scoring instrument.
- | # | Dimension | What It Measures | Low Score (1-3) | High Score (8-10) |
- | --- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
- | 1 | **Analytical Depth** | Logical rigor, structured reasoning, causal chains | Intuitive, holistic, pattern-based | Systematic, proof-oriented, precise |
- | 2 | **Creative Range** | Novelty of connections, metaphor use, lateral thinking | Conventional, incremental | Paradigm-breaking, cross-domain synthesis |
- | 3 | **Emotional Processing** | Emotional vocabulary, empathy signals, affect integration | Detached, clinical | Emotionally rich, feeling-integrated |
- | 4 | **Linguistic Precision** | Vocabulary sophistication, sentence architecture, rhetoric | Simple, direct | Architecturally complex, nuanced |
- | 5 | **Ethical Reasoning** | Values signals, fairness concern, consequence awareness | Pragmatic, outcome-focused | Principle-driven, justice-oriented |
- | 6 | **Strategic Thinking** | Long-term planning, competitive awareness, resource optimization | Tactical, reactive | Multi-move, game-theoretic |
- | 7 | **Memory Integration** | Reference to past experience, historical patterns, continuity | Present-focused | Deep historical awareness, precedent-driven |
- | 8 | **Social Intelligence** | Audience awareness, perspective-taking, relational framing | Self-referential | Deeply other-aware, coalition-building |
- | 9 | **Domain Expertise** | Technical depth, specialized knowledge, jargon confidence | Generalist | Deep specialist |
- | 10 | **Intuitive Reasoning** | Gut-feel signals, heuristic shortcuts, pattern leaps | Methodical, step-by-step | Leap-of-faith, insight-driven |
- | 11 | **Temporal Orientation** | Time-horizon of thinking — past, present, or future focus | Present-anchored | Time-spanning, historical-to-futurist |
- | 12 | **Metacognition** | Self-awareness of own thinking, uncertainty acknowledgment | Unreflective | Deeply self-aware, thinks about thinking |
+ The [DHDNA preprint](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736629), *DHDNA: A Framework for Ethical Digital Identity as Inheritable Heritage* (February 23, 2026), states in section 6.3 that validation was limited to internal testing. The [IDNA v2 preprint](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18807387), *Toward a Unified Theory of Digital Consciousness* (February 27, 2026), proposes the tension pairs in section 4.3/Table 3 and the temporal-attractor model in section 2. Neither source establishes psychometric validity for this skill's annotations. A DOI, product demonstration, or journal submission is not evidence of such validity.
- ### The 6 Tension Pairs
+ Describe observable reasoning and rhetorical choices. Genre, task, language proficiency, editing, collaboration, and AI assistance can change those choices. Do not infer intelligence, diagnosis, honesty, latent emotions, or a person's stable cognitive architecture from them.
- These are proposed interpretive pairings, not established negative correlations. Score each dimension independently; both members may be high, low, or unobserved:
+ ## The 12 annotation dimensions
- | Pair | Tension | What It Reveals |
- | -------------- | -------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
- | DIM 1 ↔ DIM 10 | Analytical ↔ Intuitive | Logic vs. Gut — how the mind reaches conclusions |
- | DIM 3 ↔ DIM 6 | Emotional ↔ Strategic | Heart vs. Head — what drives decisions |
- | DIM 2 ↔ DIM 5 | Creative ↔ Ethical | Freedom vs. Framework — innovation within or beyond rules |
- | DIM 4 ↔ DIM 12 | Linguistic ↔ Metacognitive | Expression vs. Self-Awareness — external craft vs. internal reflection |
- | DIM 7 ↔ DIM 11 | Memory ↔ Temporal | Past vs. Time Itself — experience vs. time-horizon |
- | DIM 8 ↔ DIM 9 | Social ↔ Domain | Breadth vs. Depth — people skills vs. technical mastery |
+ | # | Skill label | Current publisher label | Evidence to describe in the sample |
+ | --- | --- | --- | --- |
+ | 1 | Analytical Depth | Reasoning style | Explicit premises, alternatives, causal arguments, and checks of conclusions |
+ | 2 | Creative Range | Creative synthesis | Connections, analogies, alternative framings; novelty needs a stated comparison context |
+ | 3 | Emotional Processing | Emotional architecture | Expressed affect and consideration of others' feelings; not inferred internal emotion |
+ | 4 | Linguistic Precision | Linguistic signature | Defined terms, clear references, and controlled ambiguity; simple prose can be precise |
+ | 5 | Ethical Reasoning | Ethical reasoning | Explicit values, affected parties, tradeoffs, and consequences; not moral character |
+ | 6 | Strategic Thinking | Strategic cognition | Stated goals, constraints, contingencies, and action sequences |
+ | 7 | Memory Integration | Memory topology | Use of past events or precedents; not memory capacity or historical truth |
+ | 8 | Social Intelligence | Social intelligence | Audience adaptation and represented perspectives; not actual interpersonal ability |
+ | 9 | Domain Expertise | Domain expertise | Relevant technical explanations and qualified claims; jargon alone is insufficient, accuracy needs independent checking |
+ | 10 | Intuitive Reasoning | Intuitive processing | Explicit reliance on impressions or heuristics; missing reasoning alone is not intuition |
+ | 11 | Temporal Orientation | Temporal awareness | Stated time horizons and links between past, present, and future |
+ | 12 | Metacognition | Metacognition | Explicit uncertainty, assumptions, limitations, and revision of reasoning |
- ## How to Profile
+ ### The 6 proposed tension pairs
- ### Phase 1 — Evidence Collection
+ The IDNA preprint proposes these pairings. They are prompts for comparison, not established negative correlations or complementary scales. Rate both independently; both may be high, low, or N/A. Do not derive one score by subtracting the other from ten.
- Read the text carefully. For each dimension, identify **specific textual evidence**:
+ | Pair | Compare the sample's evidence for |
+ | --- | --- |
+ | 1 and 10 | Analytical Depth and Intuitive Reasoning |
+ | 3 and 6 | Emotional Processing and Strategic Thinking |
+ | 2 and 5 | Creative Range and Ethical Reasoning |
+ | 4 and 12 | Linguistic Precision and Metacognition |
+ | 7 and 11 | Memory Integration and Temporal Orientation |
+ | 8 and 9 | Social Intelligence and Domain Expertise |
- - Direct quotes that demonstrate the dimension
- - Structural patterns (how arguments are built)
- - Distinguish explicit evidence from material the prompt/genre gave no opportunity to express
- - Recurring patterns across multiple passages
+ ## Workflow
- ### Phase 2 — Scoring
+ ### 1. Establish the sample
- For each of the 12 dimensions:
+ Use only the text designated for this request. Record a sample label, paragraph or line references, genre, purpose, language, and known editing context. Mark missing context unknown. Distinguish the author's assertions from quoted speech, fictional characters, and copied material; do not attribute all voices to the author.
- 1. Score 1-10 only when the sample supplies relevant evidence; otherwise use N/A, not a low score
- 2. Cite the strongest textual evidence for that score
- 3. Flag confidence in the textual annotation: HIGH (multiple clear signals), MEDIUM (some signals), LOW (inferred); this is not confidence in a stable personal trait
+ If the user explicitly requests analysis of specified conversation turns, state that source scope and proceed. If the request leaves the source ambiguous, ask which text to use before expanding to earlier conversations or unrelated files.
- ### Phase 3 — Pattern Synthesis
+ ### 2. Collect evidence
- After scoring, identify:
+ For each dimension, identify specific quotations and how they support the observation. Include contrary evidence where present. Distinguish lack of expression from lack of opportunity to express it. Do not manufacture quotations or use a fictional narrator as evidence about the writer's personality.
- **Dominant Pattern:** The 2-3 most evidenced dimensions in this sample, excluding N/A
+ ### 3. Annotate all twelve dimensions
- **Less Evidenced Pattern:** Dimensions with less evidence in this sample; absence does not establish a personal deficit
+ Use qualitative observations by default. If numeric scoring is requested, use whole numbers on the local 1–10 rubric with these declared anchors:
- **Signature Tensions:** Which tension pairs show the widest gap? These define the cognitive style more than any individual score.
+ - **1–3:** Relevant but limited or weakly developed expression in this sample.
+ - **4–7:** Explicit, developed expression with some supporting context.
+ - **8–10:** Sustained, elaborated expression across several relevant passages.
+ - **N/A:** No suitable evidence or no opportunity to assess; never impute zero or a midpoint.
- **Reasoning Topology:** How does the mind move through ideas?
+ Explain each numeric choice against the dimension's evidence criterion. These are ordinal judgments, not equal-interval measurements, percentiles, calibrated probabilities, or rankings of ability. Short samples may warrant only a few observations and many N/A entries. Do not force all scores or a dominant pattern.
- - Linear (A → B → C → conclusion)
- - Spiral (approaches the same idea from multiple angles, each time deeper)
- - Web (connects disparate domains into synthesis)
- - Dialectic (thesis → antithesis → synthesis)
- - Fractal (same pattern at micro and macro levels)
+ Attach annotation confidence to each observation: HIGH for multiple unambiguous passages, MEDIUM for a clear but limited example, LOW for ambiguous evidence. Confidence concerns the textual interpretation, not a stable trait. If uncertainty prevents a defensible observation, use N/A instead of speculative scoring.
- **Decision Fingerprint:** When facing choices, does this mind:
+ ### 4. Synthesize the text pattern
- - Analyze first, then decide? (Analytical-dominant)
- - Feel first, then rationalize? (Emotional-dominant)
- - Envision the outcome first, then work backward? (Strategic-dominant)
- - Question the question itself? (Metacognitive-dominant)
+ Identify two or three most evidenced dimensions only when the sample supports them. Discuss the six proposed pairings only where both sides have evidence. A numeric gap, if requested, is a difference between local annotations; it does not identify inner conflict or predict behavior.
- ### Phase 4 — Profile Output
+ Describe the **argument structure** with examples: a sequence of premises, revisiting an idea, connecting topics, or contrasting alternatives. Labels such as linear, spiral, web, dialectic, or fractal are optional metaphors; they are neither exhaustive categories nor a model of the author's mind.
- Present the profile as:
+ Describe **stated decision steps** only when choices are actually discussed. The order of sentences cannot establish whether a person privately felt, reasoned, or decided first.
- ```
- ═══════════════════════════════════════════
- DHDNA COGNITIVE PROFILE
- Subject: [Name or "Anonymous"]
- Text analyzed: [N words / N paragraphs]
- Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
- ═══════════════════════════════════════════
+ ### 5. Review and return
- DIMENSION SCORES:
- 1. Analytical Depth ···· [█████████·] 9/10
- 2. Creative Range ······ [███████···] 7/10
- ... (all 12)
+ Verify every quotation against the sample, every observation against the cited passage, and every N/A against the available context. Check that the synthesis stays about the text. Return a profile in the conversation; export it only when requested.
- TENSION MAP:
- Analytical ████████░░ ↔ ░░████████ Intuitive
- Emotional ███░░░░░░░ ↔ ░░░░░░████ Strategic
- ... (all 6 pairs)
+ Use this output template, including all twelve dimensions:
- DOMINANT PATTERN: [Top 2-3 dimensions]
- LESS EVIDENCED PATTERN: [Observed lower scores; list N/A separately]
- REASONING TOPOLOGY: [Linear / Spiral / Web / Dialectic / Fractal]
- DECISION FINGERPRINT: [Analyze-first / Feel-first / Envision-first / Question-first]
+ ```text
+ DHDNA TEXT PATTERN PROFILE
+ Sample: [label and source scope]
+ Context: [genre, purpose, language, editing context or unknown]
+ Method: [qualitative, or local ordinal 1–10 rubric]
- NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS:
- [2-3 paragraphs about observed textual patterns, supporting quotations,
- missing evidence, and plausible task/genre explanations]
+ Dimension | Observation | Score or N/A if requested | Confidence | Quote/location
+ [one row per dimension; missing evidence remains N/A]
- KEY QUOTES:
- [3-5 most revealing quotes with dimension attribution]
- ═══════════════════════════════════════════
+ Most evidenced patterns: [supported patterns, or insufficient evidence]
+ Proposed pair comparisons: [both sides supported, or not assessed]
+ Argument structure: [description with passage references]
+ Stated decision steps: [description, or not expressed]
+ Context and limitations: [alternative explanations and missing evidence]
```
- ## Comparison Mode
-
- When the user provides two or more texts from different authors, first compare genre, prompt, length, language, and editing context. Where these differ, describe sample differences without attributing them to the authors. Then produce individual profiles and a **comparison synthesis**:
+ ## Worked example
- - Where do the minds converge? (shared high dimensions)
- - Where do they diverge? (opposing scores on the same dimension)
- - Which tension pairs would create productive disagreement?
- - If these minds were in a room together, what would the conversation look like?
+ Synthetic sample, one paragraph:
- ## Self-Profile Mode
+ > We could repeat the measurement or replace the sensor. I favor repeating it because the control failed. If the control fails again, we will inspect the wiring. This explanation is tentative: temperature was not recorded.
- If the user asks to profile their own thinking (using the conversation history as text), be transparent:
+ A manual application supports Analytical Depth (alternatives and a reason), Strategic Thinking (a conditional next step), and Metacognition (a stated limitation). Emotional Processing and Memory Integration are N/A: this sample offers no suitable evidence for them. Intuitive Reasoning is N/A, not a low score inferred from the presence of analysis. Linguistic Precision can be discussed from the explicit referents and conditional wording. Domain accuracy remains unchecked; the paragraph does not establish the writer's expertise. There is insufficient material to characterize a stable thinking style or predict a choice.
- - **Ask before reading back through the conversation.** Say what you intend to use as source
- material and wait for an answer. Prior turns were written for a different purpose, and mining
- them for psychological inference is not something to do silently.
- - Score based on the conversation so far
- - Acknowledge that conversational text may not represent the full range
- - Note that people often think differently when writing for an AI vs. writing for humans
- - Offer to re-profile if the user provides other writing samples
+ This is an illustrative annotation, not a validated reference profile or a benchmark of rater agreement.
- ## Consent and Scope
+ ## Comparing samples
- This skill infers personal cognitive and psychological attributes. That is a different thing from
- summarizing a document, and the boundaries matter:
+ First compare genre, prompt, length, language, editing context, and opportunities to express each dimension. When these differ, describe the resulting sample differences without attributing them to authors. Compare evidence dimension by dimension; preserve N/A and avoid composite totals, average-person rankings, predicted compatibility, or imagined interpersonal conversations presented as findings.
- - **Profile the text the user brings you for the current request.** Do not go looking for more
- material about the same author — other files, earlier sessions, or anything you happened to read.
- - **A profile of a third party is speculative and must say so.** When the author is someone who is
- not in the conversation and has not agreed to be analyzed — a colleague from a forwarded email, a
- candidate from an application, an author from a paper — label the output as an inference from one
- text sample, not a finding about that person.
- - **Decline profiling that feeds a consequential decision about someone.** Hiring, promotion,
- admission, clinical, disciplinary, or credit decisions are out of bounds; this framework has no
- validation supporting that use, and a 1–10 cognitive score reads as far more authoritative than
- it is.
- - **Everything stays local to the session.** Profiles are not written anywhere the user did not ask
- for and are not sent to any service.
+ For self-reflection, state which designated turns or samples were used. Conversational writing for an AI may differ from other writing. For repeated samples, keep the annotation protocol and context comparable and distinguish observed changes from changes in elicitation or rater judgment. See [advanced profiling](references/advanced-profiling.md) for genre lenses, longitudinal limits, and compact notation.
- ## What This Is NOT
+ ## Boundaries
- - Not a validated personality or cognitive-architecture test; numeric annotations do not establish construct validity
- - Not a judgment of intelligence — a chess grandmaster and a poet may score very differently but both demonstrate profound cognitive capability
- - Not static — a person's DHDNA evolves as they learn, experience, and grow. A profile is a snapshot, not a destiny.
+ - Analyze the supplied text, including third-party text, as text. State that observations do not establish attributes of its author.
+ - Do not use this rubric for hiring, promotion, admission, clinical, disciplinary, or credit decisions. Offer direct, task-relevant review of the writing or evidence instead.
+ - Do not retrieve extra personal material, upload samples to MindBook or other services, or save profiles without the user's instruction. This skill makes no offline-processing or retention guarantee about its host application.
+ - Do not describe changing sample annotations as cognitive growth, decline, identity, or a diagnosis. Neither a high score nor a low score is a measure of intelligence or human worth.
- ## Built By
+ ## Attribution
- [AHK Strategies](https://ahkstrategies.net) — AI Horizon Knowledge
- Full platform: [themindbook.app](https://themindbook.app)
- Research: [DHDNA Paper (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736629)
+ Original skill author: [AHK Strategies](https://www.ahkstrategies.net/). Related product: [MindBook](https://themindbook.app/). These public links are references, not service integrations. The skill's MIT license does not relicense the linked research or product.