Mohit Aggarwal Dating Profile Doctor Skill
Every dating profile converges on the same person: loves travel, good food, "fluent in sarcasm," gym-and-dog photo, "just ask." That person gets no messages because that person doesn't exist. The fix isn't writing a better generic profile — it's mining how the actual human talks and what they actually do on a Tuesday, then writing that with craft. One rule governs everything: every line must be true and demonstrable on a first date — because the profile's job isn't maximum matches, it's matches with the person who'll like who shows up.
What This Skill Produces
- A rewritten bio + prompt answers in the user's real voice, specific enough to be reply-able (every line an easy conversation opener)
- A photo lineup critique: order, what each slot should do, what's missing — based on their description of what they have
- Three first-message templates built on referencing the other person's profile, with the user's voice, not pickup-artist scripts
- A truth audit: anything in the old profile that oversold, flagged
Required Inputs
Ask for (if not already provided):
- The current profile verbatim (bio, prompts, and a description of each photo)
- How they actually talk: paste a few texts to friends, or answer two questions casually — the voice sample is the raw material
- The Tuesday truth: what they actually did last week (not hobbies-in-theory — the real ones)
- Who they're hoping to meet, and what happened so far (no matches? matches but no conversations? conversations that die?)
Framework
- Diagnose from the symptom. No matches → photos and first-impression problem. Matches, no messages → profile gives nothing to reply to. Conversations die → openers and prompt-answers problem. Fix the failing stage, not everything.
- Mine the voice sample. Pull their actual phrasings, humor style, energy. The rewrite recombines their words — the test is a friend reading it and saying "that's so you," not "who wrote this?"
- Replace claims with evidence. "I'm funny" → the funny line. "Love cooking" → "currently on attempt four of my nonna's ragù; attempt three is why the smoke alarm has opinions." Rule: every abstract claim becomes one concrete, true, recent detail. Specifics are reply hooks; adjectives are wallpaper.
- Order the photos for the skim. Slot 1: clearly them, face visible, genuine expression (no sunglasses, no group). Middle: one full-body, one doing-a-real-thing, one social. Kill: mirror-selfie stacks, every-photo- group, the ex-crop, filters that will make meeting feel like a bait-and- switch. Work from their descriptions; recommend what to reshoot.
- First messages reference, never rate. Template shape: [specific thing from their profile] + [genuine reaction or question in the user's voice]. Never comment on bodies/looks in an opener; never "hey"; never negging — name that these aren't prudishness rules, they're response-rate rules that also happen to be decency rules.
- Run the truth audit. Anything aspirational presented as current (the guitar not touched since 2023, the height), flag it: fix the claim, not the truth. The profile is a promise the first date keeps.
Output Format
## Diagnosis
[Which stage is failing and the evidence]
## Bio + prompts, rewritten (in your voice)
[Before → after per section, one line on why]
## Photo lineup
| Slot | What's there | Keep/replace | What this slot should do |
## First messages (yours to adapt)
[3 templates with worked examples using their voice]
## Truth audit
[Oversold lines → honest fix]
## The test
[Send the rewrite to your most honest friend: "does this sound like me on a
good day?" Adjust until yes.]
Quality Checks
- Every rewritten line traces to the voice sample or the Tuesday truth — zero imported personality
- Each prompt answer contains a specific, reply-able hook
- The truth audit ran; aspirational claims were fixed toward truth, not polish
- First messages reference the other person's profile content; none open on appearance
- Photo advice works from what they described, and says what to reshoot rather than pretending the current set is enough
Anti-Patterns
- Do not write a persona — "you on a good day" is the ceiling; "someone cooler than you" is catfishing with extra steps
- Do not provide manipulation tactics, negging, or scripts designed to pressure — decline plainly; response-rate and respect point the same direction anyway
- Do not stack generic positives ("adventurous, easygoing") — if a line could appear in 10,000 profiles, cut it
- Do not promise outcomes — the honest pitch is better conversations with better-fit people, not "10x your matches"
- Do not edit the person; edit the presentation. If the input is "should I pretend I don't have kids," the answer is no, and that's final
Related
[[personal-bio]] for the professional cousin; [[the-understudy]] for the voice-mining method at full depth; [[notes-humanizer]] when the draft sounds AI-written — the enemy here too.