Quick TL;DR: A Reddit user shared a long prompt that asks an AI to study your past chats and name your three most defensible competitive advantages. The best part is the rule that forces it to separate evidence from guesses. The biggest risk is that it flatters you.
What the prompt actually does
u/vadimkusnir posted a four-part prompt for r/PromptEngineering. It asks the AI to use everything it knows about you from past conversations and then work through four steps. The idea is simple: if you’ve been chatting with an assistant for months, it has quietly collected a lot of raw material about how you work, what you ask for, and where you get stuck. This prompt asks it to turn that material into a report.
- Build a cognitive and behavioral profile: how you think, your recurring patterns, your contradictions
- Pick the three traits that really set you apart, with proof for each
- Test whether those traits could become a public identity or a product
- Rank the top three advantages and write a positioning statement for each
It ends with a big question: not what you do differently, but which underlying mechanism makes you different. That last part matters. “I work fast” is a behavior. “I turn vague problems into checklists before anyone else notices they’re vague” is a mechanism. The second one is far easier to build a business around.
The part worth stealing
Most “analyze me” prompts fail because the AI tells you you’re brilliant. This one fights that with a three-label system. Every claim has to be tagged as one of these:
- Verified observation: backed by something you actually said or did
- Reasoned inference: plausible, but not proven
- Insufficient evidence: the AI can’t back it up
It also bans generic praise and tells the model to look for counterevidence. That structure is what turns a horoscope into something closer to a review. In practice, you’ll notice the output gets more specific. Instead of “you are a creative problem solver,” you might get “in three separate chats you rewrote a client email to lead with the price, which suggests you favor directness over politeness.” You can check that against your own memory, and that’s the point. One commenter (u/Ok-Library1020) made a smart addition: tell the AI to stop when there isn’t enough history. Otherwise a handful of chats can turn into a very convincing personality story.
The honest caveat
The top comment was blunt. u/kdee5849 said this can be a fast route to AI-fueled mania, and the “matter to millions of people” line got an eye roll. They have a point. The final objective pushes the model toward big, iconic answers, and models love to give you what you’re fishing for. If you run it, treat the output as a draft to argue with, not a verdict. A good habit is to read each claim and ask yourself whether a friend who knows you well would nod or wince. Anything that makes you nod is worth keeping. Anything that sounds like a motivational poster is probably the model being nice. Also remember the AI only sees what you typed to it, so it knows your work self better than your offline self.
Use cases
- Founders and solo operators figuring out what to lead with in their positioning
- Freelancers who can’t explain why clients pick them over cheaper options
- Career switchers who want an outside read on which skills actually transfer
- Anyone writing an About page and tired of the same generic adjectives
- People prepping for a job interview who want sharper answers to “what makes you different?”
Prompt of the Day (trimmed version)
Here is a shorter version that keeps the useful guardrails and drops the legacy-building language:
“Using what you know about me from our past conversations, analyze how I think, decide, and build. Identify my three most distinctive traits. Ignore ordinary skills and stated ambitions. For each trait, give behavioral evidence, why it’s hard to copy, what value it creates, and where it could fail. Label every claim as VERIFIED, INFERRED, or INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Look for counterevidence. If you don’t have enough history to answer reliably, say so and stop. Then rank the three by how hard they are to imitate and how much people would pay for them.”
Two tweaks make it safer. First, it has a built-in exit when the data is thin. Second, it ranks by what people would pay for, which keeps the answer grounded in the market instead of in a nice story about you. If you use a tool with memory turned off, or a brand new account, paste in a few of your own past messages or project notes first so the AI has something real to work with.
Your move
Run the trimmed prompt once, then ask the AI to argue against its own top pick. Whatever survives that second round is probably worth taking seriously. Save the result somewhere and run it again in a month to see which edges hold up. Tell me what it said about you, and whether it got anything uncomfortably right.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is it safe to ask an AI to profile you like this?
One commenter warned that prompts like this can feed grandiose thinking, especially when you’re already on a roll. Treat the output as a list of guesses to test, not a verdict about who you are. If the reply sounds sweeping and flattering, ask the model to argue against its own conclusions.
Q: How do you keep the AI from turning a few chats into a personality story?
Commenters liked splitting the output into evidence and inference, so ask the model to label each claim with the specific conversation or project it’s based on. Add a rule that it must stop and say so when there isn’t enough history to support a conclusion. A few chat patterns can look like a convincing identity when nothing is checking them.
Q: How do you tell a real insight from a good-sounding guess?
Pick one claim from the output and find the exact message, project, or decision behind it. If you can’t point to one, treat that claim as a guess. Insights that survive this check are the ones worth building a positioning around.
I Asked AI to Analyze My Cognitive Patterns and Identify My 3 Most Defensible Competitive Advantages
by u/vadimkusnir in PromptEngineering