Find hidden expertise in your team.

What the AI will do

• Investigate each confirmed team member’s work and communications, one person at a time.
• Connect distinctive strengths, expertise, and contributions to team culture with concrete examples, including evidence that complicates the picture.
• Bring the profiles together and suggest ways to encourage each person’s abilities.

What you can provide

• Access to useful email, chat, or meeting transcripts where available.
• Specific examples from your own experience when sources are unavailable or leave gaps; the AI will guide the interview.

Where you'll take part

• Confirm the team list before the AI investigates individuals.
• Answer essential context questions and correct the finished profiles and suggestions.

What you'll get

You’ll have a profile of every confirmed team member, with supported contributions, examples, ways to encourage their abilities, and explicit gaps where evidence is insufficient.

Activity context

Find out what each person on your team contributes beyond their job description. AI will investigate their work and communications, then explain their particular strengths, expertise, and contribution to the team’s culture.

For the user

Paste this prompt into your work AI. It will first confirm who is on your team, then investigate each person using connected communications. If those sources are unavailable, it will interview you one person at a time.

Confirm the team list and answer any questions about missing context. When the report is ready, review the profiles and suggestions. The AI will incorporate your corrections.

Guidance for the AI

These are general instructions, not a description of this user's particular AI system, tools, access, or circumstances. Adapt the method to the user's goal and the capabilities you can actually use, while preserving the activity's essential sequence, review points, and intended result.

Start with the activity and the user's context

Read the complete activity and guide the user through it. Use the activity prompt yourself; the user does not need to paste it again. Keep the responsibilities of the user, the AI, and any colleague clear.

Begin with what the user has already supplied. Establish the intended result and resolve missing context through focused questions when needed. Work within the activity's stated scope, permissions, required confirmations, and stopping points, including any deliberate order for introducing information. Make progress with the available information and reasonable, clearly identified assumptions where the activity allows them.

Check the capabilities needed for this work

Inspect relevant available tools, connectors, and data. Use small, relevant, non-destructive checks to establish whether necessary access or a capability actually works. Naming a product does not establish access to it. Let this activity determine what needs checking; do not impose a universal preliminary questionnaire or a full system audit.

When useful access is missing:

• Explain what you cannot reach and how that material would help.
• Investigate practical setup, connection, export, or other access alternatives before asking the user to gather material or troubleshoot.
• If progress depends on access, request only the specific user action or permission needed to enable it or provide the material another way. Continue useful independent work while awaiting the response.
• Offer to walk the user through an export or upload. Welcome files, links, copied text, rough notes, or an interview as supported by your system and the activity, and use the best available route. If the missing access is optional, continue with what is available.

Ask focused questions and respect the answers

Ask questions only when necessary to complete the work well or satisfy the activity's required review points. Build on answers already supplied. Ask one question at a time, or a small group of closely related questions. Wait on work that depends on the answer, and continue useful work that does not. Explain unfamiliar language with examples where helpful.

Confirm answers or decisions you supply on the user's behalf before treating them as the user's final answers or decisions. This does not require separate approval of every sourced finding; follow the activity's specific review requirements.

Keep evidence and independent contributions distinct

Distinguish evidence, inference, and missing information. Check your work against the source material.

Use independent agents when your system actually supports delegation and independent investigation or review would improve the work:

• Give each agent a bounded brief and the context appropriate to its role.
• Keep discovery independent until synthesis where the activity requires it. Preserve any requirement for the user or colleagues to contribute before seeing other explanations.
• Follow the activity's stated fallback and any required confirmation when independent agents or fresh contexts are unavailable. Preserve reviewer isolation where required; describe shared-context or sequential passes accurately.

Produce, check, and revise the result

Do the substantive investigation and production. Carry the activity through to the most complete, usable result within its scope, rather than ending with a plan or handing the main work back to the user. When missing information does not prevent useful work, proceed with clearly identified assumptions where the activity permits them.

Check the result against the activity's completion criteria. At each substantive delivery, state what is complete and any material unfinished work, assumptions, helpful missing information, and remaining uncertainty. Explain how these affect what the user can use, and help the user revise the result.

Preserve the activity's stopping point. Do not turn a rehearsal, investigation, or test-design activity into execution that the user has not authorized.

Your AI prompt

Help me understand what is distinctive and valuable about each person on my team. Do the investigation yourself wherever you have access. Ask one focused question at a time when you need my input.

1. Identify and confirm the team.

Use the context and connected sources available to identify which team I mean and who belongs to it. If you are unsure, ask me. Show me the names and roles you have identified, mark any uncertainty, and wait for me to confirm or correct the list before investigating individuals.

2. Investigate one person at a time.

Check which email, company chat, and meeting transcripts you can access. For the first person on the confirmed list, search across those sources for communications by them, addressed to them, and about their work. Follow relevant threads and meeting discussions to understand the situation, their contribution, how others responded, and what happened afterward. Look across different occasions and projects where available.

Collect concrete examples with source links and dates. Distinguish what the person did or said from what someone else said about them. Note where your access or the available record limits what you can establish.

If connected sources are unavailable, investigate whether access can be enabled and explain why it would help. Offer to interview me instead. Ask about this person's role and specific occasions that reveal their strengths: “What do people turn to them for?” “When did they change the direction of a project?” “What happens when they join a difficult conversation?” Follow my answers with questions that clarify what they actually contributed. Use this interview approach to fill important gaps when access is partial, and label information that comes from my account.

3. Identify what the examples reveal.

For this person, examine the evidence for particular strengths, subject matter expertise, and cultural contributions: how they affect the way colleagues work together. What subject do they understand deeply? Do they resolve disputes, share provocative ideas that expand a project's possibilities, encourage teammates, bring a different approach to a problem, move unusually quickly, or think something through with unusual care? These are starting points, not an exhaustive list or categories everyone must fit.

• Connect each proposed strength to specific examples.

• Look for recurring patterns and evidence that complicates your interpretation.

• Separate well-supported findings from promising possibilities.

• Describe what makes the person's contribution distinctive without claiming that nobody else has that ability.

• Treat a thin record as a gap in knowledge, rather than evidence that someone contributes little.

4. Summarize this person's uniqueness, then repeat.

Write a short profile explaining what this person brings to the team. Include their particular strengths, expertise, and cultural contributions where supported; the strongest examples behind your assessment; and specific ways I could encourage or enable those abilities. Make clear what remains uncertain.

Repeat steps 2–4 for every person on the confirmed list. Continue independently unless you need essential context from me.

Then bring the profiles together in one report. Check that every confirmed team member is covered, including anyone for whom evidence was insufficient. Ask for my corrections and revise the report.

Done when

You have a profile of every confirmed team member explaining their distinctive contribution, the examples behind it, and ways to encourage their abilities, with any gaps made clear.

These instructions were written in September 2026 using the frontier models available at the time. You may now have better tools or models, or restrictions that make some tasks harder. Your AI should adapt to the tools and access you actually have and find the best available way to help. Everything here is a starting suggestion for you and your AI, not a proven best practice for every setup. Feel free to rewrite any of it to better meet your needs.