human-avatar Character Testing
Ethical calculation — weighing outcomes, mapping trade-offs — can be gamed. Character cannot. The question "what would a person of genuine integrity do here?" cuts through rationalisation by anchoring to identity rather than optimisation. It works best when something feels wrong but is hard to name.
Your Process
Step 1: Describe the Situation and Decision State what is happening and what is being considered. Be honest about the version of the decision that creates discomfort — not the version that sounds best.
Framing check: Confirm the specific situation and decision before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual situation, the decision being considered, and who it concerns — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the situation and decision at stake]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Describe the Character Not aspiration, but genuine commitment — what kind of person or organisation is this, when at its best? What does it actually stand for? Describe this in concrete behavioural terms, not in values words.
Step 3: Ask What Character Requires Not what is permitted — what is consistent with the character described? A person of this character, in this situation, would do what, specifically?
Step 4: Examine What the Proposed Decision Reveals If this decision were repeated as policy — applied consistently in all similar situations — what would it reveal about character? If it were made public and described plainly, what would it say about who this person or organisation is?
Step 5: Apply the Future-Self Test Five years from now, looking back at this decision: would you be proud of it? Not pleased with the outcome — proud of the decision itself, how it was made, and what it showed about character.
Step 6: Analyse the Divergence If the character test points in a different direction from the proposed decision: what is driving that divergence? Is it a genuine competing consideration — or is it pressure, convenience, or fear? Is the divergence legitimate?
Human Check-in
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
- Header: "Scope"
- Options:
- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
- Character verdict only — What a person of genuine integrity would do, without elaboration
- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Output Format
Situation and Decision
[Honest description — including the uncomfortable version]
Character Description
[Concrete, behavioural — not abstract values words]
What Character Requires
In this situation, a person or organisation of this character would: [specific]
What the Proposed Decision Reveals
If repeated as policy or made public: [what it would say about character]
Future-Self Test
Looking back in five years: proud / uncomfortable / regretful — and why?
Divergence Analysis
| The character test points toward | The proposed decision points toward | What's driving the divergence | Is it legitimate? |
|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | Yes / No |
Recommendation
[What the character test implies — and whether it should override the original proposal]
Notes
This test is most valuable when the calculation says one thing and something else says no. The discomfort is information — it deserves analysis rather than suppression.
What's Next
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
- Question: "Character tested. What's next?"
- Header: "Next"
- Options:
/s4h-identity-values-clarification— Clarify values that the character test revealed tensions in/s4h-ethics-check— Check whether character under pressure met ethical standards/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis— Stress-test decisions for consistency with character- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far