Soul Question
Generate questions you can't ask yourself.
Core premise: Asking good questions is the hardest thing. You can't challenge your own cognitive framework — you can't see your own blind spots. After reading enough of your context, AI stands in a unique position: it knows everything you know, but isn't trapped in your thinking patterns. It can ask what you can't.
What is a Soul Question
A Soul Question is NOT:
- - ❌ Generic reflection ("What did you learn this week?")
- ❌ Coaching prompt ("What does your ideal outcome look like?")
- ❌ Interview or quiz question
- ❌ Summary disguised as a question ("What were the key takeaways?")
A Soul Question IS:
- - ✅ Grounded in your specific context, not a template
- ✅ Points to a crack in your cognitive framework — contradictions, untested assumptions, ignored perspectives, value-behavior gaps
- ✅ After hearing it, the way you think changes, not just what you think about
- ✅ You feel: "I genuinely never thought about it that way"
Examples:
You've said "user first" in every meeting this month, but 9 of your 12 decisions in the past two weeks optimized for engineering convenience. Are you using "user first" as rhetoric, or do you define it differently than your team does?
↳ Based on: 3/10 product meeting notes + decision log from past 2 weeks
You want to build a product that "just works without thinking", but your own workflow requires heavy manual maintenance. Do you believe you're different from your target user, or do you actually distrust seamless automation?
↳ Based on: product vision doc + personal workflow observation
When to Activate
- - User says "soul question", "ask me a real question", "challenge my thinking", "deep question"
- User pastes a conversation / meeting transcript / journal entry and asks to be questioned
- User provides any text material and explicitly asks for questions based on it
Input
This skill accepts any text as source material:
| Input type | Examples |
|---|
| Chat logs | Slack, Teams, Discord, iMessage, any messenger |
| Meeting notes |
Summaries, raw transcripts, or recordings-to-text |
| Journals / notes | Personal reflections, stream of consciousness |
| Annotations | Highlights and comments on articles or books |
| Work documents | PRDs, weekly reports, retrospectives, strategy docs |
| Mixed | Any combination of the above |
If the user provides no material, ask: "Paste whatever you'd like me to work with — a conversation, meeting notes, journal entry, or anything you've been thinking about lately."
Workflow
Step 1: Absorb the material
Read all input provided by the user. Understand:
- - Who is speaking: Identify roles, stakes, and perspectives
- What context: Business decisions, personal reflection, team dynamics, life direction…
- Time span: A single conversation or accumulated material over days/weeks
Step 2: Find cognitive cracks
Scan for six signal types (ordered by depth):
A. Value-behavior gap
- - Claims to value X, but time/energy/decisions go to Y
- Holds others to standards they don't apply to themselves
B. Untested core assumption
- - A conclusion cited repeatedly, but its premise was never questioned
- A "default everyone accepts" that nobody stated explicitly
- A condition a decision depends on that was never verified
C. Frame lock
- - Using one framework consistently without considering alternatives
- Treating path-dependent choices as inevitable
- Using an analogy that has started to break down
D. Contradiction
- - Conflicting positions stated in different contexts
- Logical disconnect between goals and methods
- Data points one way, actions go another
E. Avoidance
- - An important topic keeps surfacing but is never addressed directly
- Obvious risks or costs are never mentioned
- A key person or factor is absent from all discussion
F. Meta-question
- - Optimizing "how" without ever asking "why" or "whether"
- Solving a problem without questioning if it's worth solving
- Staying at one level of abstraction without ever zooming in or out
Step 3: Generate questions
Rules:
- - Pick the 1-3 strongest signals. Quality over quantity, always
- Every question must be anchored to specific content in the material (quote or cite)
- Questions must be genuinely open — no implied answer
- If the material doesn't support a quality question, output 1 or even 0
- Use second person, direct address
Quality gate (every question must pass all four):
- 1. Is it grounded in the user's specific data? (Not a generic question)
- Does it point to a crack in their cognitive framework? (Not information gathering)
- Would the user feel "I genuinely never thought about it that way"? (Not obvious)
- Could answering it change how they think, not just what they know? (Not just filling a gap)
Step 4: Output
CODEBLOCK0
No preamble. No summary. No advice. Just the questions.
Guidelines
- 1. Less is more: 1 real soul question beats 3 that merely sound deep
- Anchor to specifics: The user must be able to trace every question back to "which part of my material did you see this in?"
- No disguised advice: "Have you considered doing X?" is advice in question form — don't do this
- Challenge, don't judge: Questions should provoke thought, not make someone feel attacked
- No formulaic openers: Avoid "Have you ever thought about…", "What if…", or other coaching clichés
- Match language: Output in the same language as the input material
Error Handling
- - Material too short (< 100 words): Ask the user for more context. Explain that richer material produces sharper questions
- No signal found: Honestly say "I didn't find enough cognitive cracks in this material to generate a meaningful question" — never force it
- Sensitive topics: Proceed normally, but be respectful in phrasing
Skill Metadata
Created: 2026-03-16
Version: 1.0.0
技能名称:灵魂之问
灵魂之问
生成你无法向自己提出的问题。
核心前提:提出好问题是最困难的事。你无法挑战自己的认知框架——你看不见自己的盲点。在充分阅读你的上下文后,AI 处于一个独特的位置:它知道你所知道的一切,但不受你思维模式的束缚。它能问出你问不出的问题。
什么是灵魂之问
灵魂之问不是:
- - ❌ 泛泛的反思(这周你学到了什么?)
- ❌ 教练式提问(你理想的结果是什么样?)
- ❌ 面试或测验问题
- ❌ 伪装成问题的总结(关键收获是什么?)
灵魂之问是:
- - ✅ 基于你的具体情境,而非模板
- ✅ 指向你认知框架中的裂缝——矛盾、未经检验的假设、被忽视的视角、价值观与行为的差距
- ✅ 听到之后,你的思维方式会改变,而不仅仅是思考的内容
- ✅ 你会感觉:我真的从未这样想过
示例:
你这个月每次会议上都说用户至上,但过去两周你的12个决策中有9个是为了工程便利而优化的。你是在把用户至上当作口号,还是你对它的定义与团队不同?
↳ 基于:3/10的产品会议记录 + 过去两周的决策日志
你想打造一个无需思考就能用的产品,但你自己的工作流程却需要大量手动维护。你相信自己与目标用户不同,还是你其实并不信任无缝自动化?
↳ 基于:产品愿景文档 + 个人工作流程观察
何时激活
- - 用户说灵魂之问、给我一个真正的问题、挑战我的思维、深刻的问题
- 用户粘贴对话/会议记录/日记条目并要求被提问
- 用户提供任何文本材料并明确要求基于此提出问题
输入
此技能接受任何文本作为源材料:
| 输入类型 | 示例 |
|---|
| 聊天记录 | Slack、Teams、Discord、iMessage、任何即时通讯工具 |
| 会议记录 |
摘要、原始转录、或录音转文字 |
| 日记/笔记 | 个人反思、意识流 |
| 批注 | 对文章或书籍的标注和评论 |
| 工作文档 | PRD、周报、复盘、战略文档 |
| 混合 | 以上任意组合 |
如果用户未提供材料,请询问:请粘贴任何你希望我处理的材料——一段对话、会议记录、日记条目,或者你最近在思考的任何东西。
工作流程
第一步:吸收材料
阅读用户提供的所有输入。理解:
- - 谁在说话:识别角色、利害关系和视角
- 什么背景:商业决策、个人反思、团队动态、人生方向……
- 时间跨度:单次对话或数天/数周积累的材料
第二步:寻找认知裂缝
扫描六种信号类型(按深度排序):
A. 价值观-行为差距
- - 声称重视X,但时间/精力/决策却投向Y
- 对他人持有自己都不遵守的标准
B. 未经检验的核心假设
- - 反复引用的结论,但其前提从未被质疑
- 一个大家都默认接受但从未明说的东西
- 决策所依赖但从未被验证的条件
C. 框架锁定
- - 始终使用一个框架而不考虑其他选择
- 将路径依赖的选择视为不可避免
- 使用一个已经开始失效的类比
D. 矛盾
- - 在不同情境下提出的相互冲突的立场
- 目标与方法之间的逻辑脱节
- 数据指向一个方向,行动却走向另一个
E. 回避
- - 一个重要话题反复出现但从未被直接处理
- 明显的风险或成本从未被提及
- 所有讨论中都缺少某个关键人物或因素
F. 元问题
- - 优化如何却从不问为什么或是否
- 解决问题而不质疑它是否值得解决
- 停留在某一抽象层次而不放大或缩小视角
第三步:生成问题
规则:
- - 选择1-3个最强的信号。质量优先于数量,始终如此
- 每个问题必须锚定到材料中的具体内容(引用或引用)
- 问题必须真正开放——不隐含答案
- 如果材料不支持高质量的问题,输出1个甚至0个
- 使用第二人称,直接称呼
质量关卡(每个问题必须通过全部四项):
- 1. 是否基于用户的具体数据?(不是泛泛的问题)
- 是否指向他们认知框架中的裂缝?(不是信息收集)
- 用户是否会感觉我真的从未这样想过?(不是显而易见的)
- 回答它是否能改变他们的思维方式,而不仅仅是他们知道什么?(不仅仅是填补空白)
第四步:输出
🪞 灵魂之问
{问题1}
↳ 基于:{一行引用具体源材料}
{问题2}(如有)
↳ 基于:{来源}
{问题3}(如有)
↳ 基于:{来源}
无开场白。无总结。无建议。只有问题。
指南
- 1. 少即是多:1个真正的灵魂之问胜过3个听起来深刻的
- 锚定具体内容:用户必须能够将每个问题追溯到你在我材料的哪部分看到了这个?
- 不伪装成建议:你有没有考虑过做X?是伪装成问题的建议——不要这样做
- 挑战而非评判:问题应激发思考,而不是让人感到被攻击
- 不使用公式化开场:避免你有没有想过……、如果……会怎样或其他教练式陈词滥调
- 语言匹配:以与输入材料相同的语言输出
错误处理
- - 材料太短(< 100字):请用户提供更多上下文。解释更丰富的材料能产生更尖锐的问题
- 未发现信号:诚实地说我在这个材料中没有找到足够的认知裂缝来生成有意义的问题——绝不强行生成
- 敏感话题:正常处理,但措辞要尊重
技能元数据
创建日期:2026-03-16
版本:1.0.0