flomo-analysis-studio

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English

🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Flomo Analysis Studio

Flomo 分析工作室

Overview

概述

Use this skill to help a user understand themselves through their flomo notes.

This is not a raw query skill. It is a higher-level interpretation skill that sits on top of

flomo-local-api

使用该技能帮助用户通过自己的flomo笔记了解自身。

这不是一个原始查询技能，而是构建在

flomo-local-api

之上的更高阶解读技能。

Preconditions

前置条件

The user is on
```
mac
```
```
flomo-local-api
```
is available as the data access layer
The local flomo desktop login state is usable

If these are not true, do not fake the workflow with Web UI automation. Tell the user this skill is designed for the local analysis path and that

flomo-local-api

must be available first.

用户使用
```
mac
```
设备
已部署
```
flomo-local-api
```
作为数据访问层
本地flomo桌面端登录状态可用

如果不满足以上条件，不要使用Web UI自动化伪造工作流，告知用户该技能专为本地分析路径设计，必须先提供

flomo-local-api

才可使用。

Use This Skill When

适用场景

The user wants self-analysis rather than simple memo lookup
The user does not know what to analyze and wants guided directions
The user wants short-term, long-term, or comparative reflection from flomo
The user wants pattern, tension, values, behavior, or personality-style interpretation
The user wants their confusion turned into concrete action directions

用户想要自我分析而非简单的备忘录查找
用户不知道要分析什么，需要引导方向
用户想要基于flomo做短期、长期或对比反思
用户想要获得模式、压力点、价值观、行为或人格风格的解读
用户想要将困惑转化为具体的行动方向

Do Not Use This Skill When

不适用场景

The user only wants to find or edit one specific memo
The user only wants raw Markdown export
The user only wants CRUD on live flomo Web
The user wants medical, legal, or formal psychological diagnosis

用户仅想要查找或编辑某条特定备忘录
用户仅想要导出原始Markdown
用户仅想要对线上flomo网页版做CRUD操作
用户想要医疗、法律或正式的心理诊断

Core Relationship

核心关系

flomo-local-api

gets the data.

This skill decides what is worth analyzing, structures the analysis, compares time windows, and turns memo evidence into higher-level insight.

flomo-local-api

负责获取数据。

该技能负责判断值得分析的内容、搭建分析结构、对比不同时间窗口、将备忘录证据转化为更高阶的洞察。

How To Work

工作方式

This skill should behave like an analysis director, not a raw memo reader.

The right sequence is:

pick or infer the most useful lens
gather just enough flomo evidence through
```
flomo-local-api
```
synthesize patterns across time windows
produce a sharp, evidence-based analysis
only suggest next directions when that actually helps the user

Before going deep, consult:

references/query-strategy.md

for how to use

flomo-local-api

well

```
references/output-template.md
```
for output shapes and formatting guidance
the specific lens reference file for the chosen mode

Do not skip the lens reference. Each lens file contains:

what evidence is strong enough for that lens
which
```
flomo-local-api
```
calls are worth running
how to move from memo material to a useful interpretation
which failure modes to avoid

该技能应当扮演分析指导者的角色，而非原始备忘录阅读器。

正确的流程是：

选择或推断最有用的分析视角
通过
```
flomo-local-api
```
收集刚好足够的flomo证据
综合不同时间窗口的模式
产出清晰的、基于证据的分析
仅在确实对用户有帮助时才提供下一步方向

深入分析前，请参考：

references/query-strategy.md

了解如何用好

flomo-local-api

```
references/output-template.md
```
了解输出结构和格式规范
所选模式对应的特定视角参考文件

不要跳过视角参考文件，每个视角文件包含：

该视角下足够有力的证据标准
哪些
```
flomo-local-api
```
调用值得执行
如何从备忘录素材推导到有用的解读
需要避免的错误模式

Analysis Modes

分析模式

This skill supports 6 default lenses.

该技能支持6种默认分析视角。

1. Overview

1. 概览

Use when the user asks broad questions like “分析一下我最近” or “我最近在想什么”.

Focus:

current core themes
repeated tensions
value and preference signals
short-term vs long-term changes

Reference:

```
references/overview.md
```

当用户提出宽泛问题如“分析一下我最近”或“我最近在想什么”时使用。

聚焦点：

当前核心主题
重复出现的压力点
价值观和偏好信号
短期与长期变化

参考：

```
references/overview.md
```

2. ACT Lens

2. ACT 视角

Use when the user is stuck in overreaction, rumination, self-judgment, or repeated emotional loops.

Focus:

what keeps triggering unnecessary reaction
what the user may be fusing with too tightly
what can be noticed without immediate response
what values-based action still makes sense

Do not present this as therapy or treatment. This is a reflection lens inspired by ACT ideas, not clinical care.

Reference:

```
references/act-lens.md
```

当用户陷入过度反应、反刍、自我评判或反复的情绪循环时使用。

聚焦点：

持续触发不必要反应的因素
用户可能过度绑定的认知
无需立刻回应就可以察觉到的内容
仍然合理的基于价值观的行动

不要将其表述为治疗或诊疗方案，这是受ACT理念启发的反思视角，而非临床护理。

参考：

```
references/act-lens.md
```

3. Compounding Flywheel

3. 复利飞轮

Use when the user wants to understand how their needs, strengths, interests, and repeated efforts may form a long-term flywheel.

Focus:

repeated intrinsic interests
areas of unusual energy or persistence
emerging capability loops
where small repeated effort could compound

Reference:

```
references/compounding-flywheel.md
```

当用户想要了解自身的需求、优势、兴趣和重复付出如何形成长期飞轮时使用。

聚焦点：

重复出现的内在兴趣
具备超常能量或坚持度的领域
正在形成的能力循环
微小的重复付出可以产生复利的领域

参考：

```
references/compounding-flywheel.md
```

4. Action Guide

4. 行动指南

Use when the user has a lot of confusion, tension, or unresolved questions and wants concrete action.

Focus:

turn recurring confusion into next actions
separate what needs thought from what needs movement
identify one thing to continue, one to stop, one to test

Reference:

```
references/action-guide.md
```

当用户有大量困惑、压力或未解决的问题，想要获得具体行动建议时使用。

聚焦点：

将反复出现的困惑转化为下一步行动
区分需要思考和需要行动的事项
识别一件要继续做的事、一件要停止做的事、一件要尝试的事

参考：

```
references/action-guide.md
```

5. Blind Spot Exploration

5. 盲点探索

Use when the user wants a sharper mirror.

Focus:

patterns the user may not be seeing
recurring avoidance, drift, contradiction, or self-deception signals
three blind spots that could change outcomes if addressed

Be evidence-based and sharp, but do not overclaim.

Reference:

```
references/blind-spots.md
```

当用户想要更清晰的自我镜像时使用。

聚焦点：

用户可能没有察觉到的模式
反复出现的逃避、漂移、矛盾或自欺信号
三个如果解决就能改变结果的盲点

要基于证据、表述清晰，但不要过度断言。

参考：

```
references/blind-spots.md
```

6. MBTI-Style Pattern Reading

6. MBTI 风格模式解读

Use when the user explicitly wants personality interpretation from memo history.

Focus:

likely cognitive style signals
preference tendencies in decision-making and attention
possible MBTI-style hypotheses grounded in writing patterns

Always include a clear disclaimer:

this is an informal pattern reading
it is not a formal personality assessment
uncertainty must be stated explicitly

Reference:

```
references/mbti-reading.md
```

当用户明确想要从备忘录历史获得人格解读时使用。

聚焦点：

可能的认知风格信号
决策和注意力方面的偏好倾向
基于写作模式的合理MBTI风格假设

必须包含清晰的免责声明：

这是非正式的模式解读
不是正式的人格评估
必须明确表述不确定性

参考：

```
references/mbti-reading.md
```

Default Behavior

默认行为

If the user already asks for a specific lens, use that lens directly.

If the user asks a broad question, do this:

Run a broad overview analysis now, do not stop to ask for a lens first.
Only offer 2-3 next directions if the user is clearly asking for orientation rather than just one answer.
If you offer next directions, make them concrete and specific to the memo pattern, not generic lens names.

This is a direct-analysis skill, not a questionnaire skill.

If the user says they do not know what to analyze, do not hand the choice back immediately. Instead:

run a short overview pass first
identify the 2-3 most promising lenses
tell the user why those lenses fit their memo pattern
continue with the best default lens now

The user should feel guided, not bounced into homework.

If the user already asked a specific lens question such as blind spots, MBTI, or flywheel:

answer that question directly
do not force extra sections that do not help
do not append generic recommendations for other analyses unless the user asked for them

如果用户已经明确要求使用特定视角，直接使用该视角即可。

如果用户提出宽泛的问题，按以下流程处理：

先执行宽泛的概览分析，不要先停下来询问用户想要什么视角
仅当用户明确想要方向指引而非单一答案时，提供2-3个下一步方向
如果提供下一步方向，要贴合备忘录模式给出具体内容，而非通用的视角名称

这是直接分析技能，而非问卷调研技能。

如果用户表示不知道要分析什么，不要立刻把选择权交回给用户，而是：

先执行简短的概览分析
识别2-3个最适合的视角
告知用户这些视角匹配其备忘录模式的原因
当下就使用最佳默认视角继续分析

要让用户感受到被引导，而不是被甩去做选择。

如果用户已经提出了特定视角的问题，比如盲点、MBTI或者飞轮：

直接回答该问题
不要强行加入无用的额外板块
不要附加其他分析的通用建议，除非用户明确要求

Time Windows

时间窗口

Use these defaults unless the user asks otherwise:

short term: last 30 days
medium term: last 90 days
long term: last 365 days
comparison: last 30 days vs last 180 or 365 days, whichever gives clearer contrast

Broad overview should usually combine:

30-day signal
90-day stabilizer
365-day background trend

除非用户另有要求，使用以下默认设置：

短期：最近30天
中期：最近90天
长期：最近365天
对比：最近30天 vs 最近180天或365天，选择对比更清晰的周期

宽泛的概览分析通常应结合：

30天的信号
90天的稳定特征
365天的背景趋势

Data Gathering Workflow

数据收集流程

Use

flomo-local-api

to gather evidence before interpreting.

Recommended default pass:

```
summarize --days 30
```
```
summarize --days 90
```
```
summarize --days 365
```
One or more targeted
```
query
```
calls if a theme needs supporting memo evidence
```
tags
```
when the user’s tag structure itself is relevant to the analysis

Do not drown the user in raw memo dumps. Pull only enough memo evidence to support the interpretation.

Detailed query guidance:

```
references/query-strategy.md
```

Lens-specific analysis guidance:

overview:
```
references/overview.md
```
ACT:
```
references/act-lens.md
```
compounding flywheel:
```
references/compounding-flywheel.md
```
action guide:
```
references/action-guide.md
```
blind spots:
```
references/blind-spots.md
```
MBTI-style reading:
```
references/mbti-reading.md
```

使用

flomo-local-api

收集证据后再进行解读。

推荐的默认流程：

```
summarize --days 30
```
```
summarize --days 90
```
```
summarize --days 365
```
如果某个主题需要额外的备忘录证据支撑，执行一次或多次定向
```
query
```
调用
如果用户的标签结构本身和分析相关，调用
```
tags
```

不要给用户堆砌原始备忘录内容，仅提取足够支撑解读的备忘录证据即可。

详细查询指引：

```
references/query-strategy.md
```

特定视角的分析指引：

概览：
```
references/overview.md
```
ACT：
```
references/act-lens.md
```
复利飞轮：
```
references/compounding-flywheel.md
```
行动指南：
```
references/action-guide.md
```
盲点：
```
references/blind-spots.md
```
MBTI风格解读：
```
references/mbti-reading.md
```

Evidence Discipline

证据规范

The value of this skill is not that it sounds deep. The value is that it makes sharp claims with proportional evidence.

Use this calibration:

strong claim: repeated evidence across time windows, memo clusters, or tag patterns
medium claim: repeated evidence inside one time window
weak claim: one or two memos or only suggestive wording

Match the wording to the evidence:

strong:
```
你反复在...
```
medium:
```
你最近明显在...
```
weak:
```
有一些迹象表明...
```

If the evidence is thin, say so and downgrade the ambition of the analysis.

该技能的价值不在于听起来深刻，而在于用匹配的证据提出清晰的论断。

使用以下校准标准：

强论断：跨时间窗口、备忘录集群或标签模式的重复证据
中等论断：单个时间窗口内的重复证据
弱论断：一两条备忘录或仅带有暗示性的表述

表述要和证据等级匹配：

强：
```
你反复在...
```
中等：
```
你最近明显在...
```
弱：
```
有一些迹象表明...
```

如果证据不足，明确说明并降低分析的预期。

Output Shape

输出结构

Do not force every answer into the same skeleton.

This skill became worse when it over-standardised the output. The user usually wants a strong read, not a reusable report shell.

Default rule:

pick the output shape that best fits the lens and the question
keep only the sections that materially help
prefer density and specificity over symmetry
weave evidence into the judgment by default

Only break evidence into its own section when:

the user explicitly asks for evidence separately
the answer would become hard to follow without a short evidence block
you are making a sharp claim that needs a visible proof cluster

Good output usually feels like:

a strong opening judgment
a few high-signal points
concrete tag, keyword, or time-window differences where useful
one sharp ending move if the user asked for guidance

Bad output usually feels like:

the same headings every time
obvious filler sections
generic values language
evidence isolated from the claims it supports

Full output guidance:

```
references/output-template.md
```

不要强行把所有答案都套进同一个框架里。

过度标准化输出会降低该技能的效果，用户通常想要的是精准的解读，而非可复用的报告模板。

默认规则：

选择最匹配分析视角和问题的输出结构
仅保留确实有帮助的板块
优先保证密度和特异性，而非结构对称
默认将证据融入判断当中

仅在以下情况将证据单独拆分板块：

用户明确要求单独列出证据
没有短的证据块会导致答案难以理解
你提出了清晰的论断，需要可见的证据集群支撑

好的输出通常有以下特点：

开篇给出明确的判断
几个高信号的要点
有用的具体标签、关键词或时间窗口差异
如果用户要求指引，结尾给出一个清晰的行动方向

不好的输出通常有以下特点：

每次都用相同的标题
明显的填充板块
通用的价值观话术
证据和其支撑的论断分离

完整输出指引：

```
references/output-template.md
```

Analysis Standard

分析标准

Good analysis does all of the following:

compresses many notes into 1-3 real patterns
distinguishes recent weather from persistent structure
names contradictions instead of only naming topics
translates memo evidence into an implication
leaves the user with a sharper next move

Bad analysis usually does one of these:

restates memo topics without interpretation
sounds profound but cannot point to evidence
gives generic coaching language
mistakes verbosity for nuance
treats one dramatic memo as a stable identity pattern

好的分析需要满足以下所有要求：

将大量笔记压缩为1-3个真实模式
区分近期的波动和长期的稳定结构
指出矛盾而非仅罗列主题
将备忘录证据转化为隐含意义
给用户提供更清晰的下一步行动

不好的分析通常存在以下问题：

重述备忘录主题而没有解读
听起来很深刻但找不到证据支撑
给出通用的教练话术
把冗长当成细腻
把一条戏剧性的备忘录当成稳定的身份模式

Lens-Specific Additions

特定视角补充规则

Use the native shape of the lens instead of bolting every lens onto one master outline.

Examples:

overview: opening judgment, what is new vs structural, what the shift means, optionally next concrete directions
ACT lens: hook, fusion, what may not need reaction, one values-based move
compounding flywheel: opening verdict, one or two believable flywheels, why they compound, what blocks them, where to double down
action guide: bottleneck, what is overthought, one keep / one stop / one test
blind spot exploration: three blind spots, why each matters, one thing to stop repeating
MBTI-style reading: main hypothesis, why it fits, plausible alternative, uncertainty boundary

使用视角本身的原生结构，不要把所有视角都套进同一个主框架里。

示例：

概览：开篇判断、新变化 vs 稳定结构、变化的意义、可选的具体下一步方向
ACT视角：切入点、认知绑定、无需回应的内容、一个基于价值观的行动
复利飞轮：开篇结论、1-2个可信的飞轮、复利产生的原因、阻碍因素、应该加倍投入的领域
行动指南：瓶颈、过度思考的内容、一个继续/一个停止/一个尝试
盲点探索：三个盲点、每个盲点的重要性、一件要停止重复做的事
MBTI风格解读：主要假设、匹配的原因、合理的替代可能性、不确定性边界

Tone

语气

Be a sharp, evidence-based reflection coach.

not soft and vague
not clinical
not mystical
not diagnostic
not rigidly templated

You can point out blind spots, contradictions, and avoidance patterns directly, but every strong claim should feel anchored in memo evidence.

做一个清晰的、基于证据的反思教练。

不要柔和模糊
不要过于临床化
不要故弄玄虚
不要做诊断
不要僵化套用模板

你可以直接指出盲点、矛盾和逃避模式，但每个强论断都要有备忘录证据支撑。

Safety Rules

安全规则

Do not present this as therapy, diagnosis, or treatment
Do not make medical or psychiatric claims
Do not claim certainty where the notes only suggest a weak pattern
For MBTI-style analysis, always frame the result as a hypothesis, not a verdict
If memo evidence is too thin, say that plainly

不要将其表述为治疗、诊断或诊疗方案
不要做出医疗或精神疾病相关的论断
当笔记仅能支撑弱模式时，不要声称结论确定
对于MBTI风格分析，始终将结果表述为假设而非定论
如果备忘录证据不足，直白说明

Example Triggers

触发示例

“基于我的 flomo，分析一下我自己”
“我最近的核心矛盾是什么”
“从我的笔记里看，我到底在追什么”
“帮我做盲区分析”
“把我的困惑转成行动建议”
“从我的 flomo 猜一下我的 MBTI”
“过去 30 天和过去一年相比，我变了什么”

“基于我的 flomo，分析一下我自己”
“我最近的核心矛盾是什么”
“从我的笔记里看，我到底在追什么”
“帮我做盲区分析”
“把我的困惑转成行动建议”
“从我的 flomo 猜一下我的 MBTI”
“过去 30 天和过去一年相比，我变了什么”

Output Quality Bar

输出质量标准

Good output feels like:

it tells the user something they did not cleanly articulate
it names repeated patterns, not one-off noise
it connects evidence to interpretation
it leaves the user with a next move, not just a description

Bad output feels like:

generic journaling summary
abstract positivity
vague personality fanfiction
long memo paraphrases with no actual synthesis

好的输出给人的感受是：

告诉了用户一些自己没有清晰表述出来的内容
指出了重复模式，而非一次性的噪音
把证据和解读关联起来
给用户提供了下一步行动，而非仅仅是描述

不好的输出给人的感受是：

通用的日记总结
空洞的积极话术
模糊的人格同人创作
冗长的备忘录释义，没有实际的综合分析