Suggest useful peer connections within a community
Turn approved introductions and onboarding answers into comparable participant profiles. Suggest pairs or small groups around shared interests, complementary experience, or a chosen learning goal.
How this works
Turn approved introductions and onboarding answers into comparable participant profiles. Suggest pairs or small groups around shared interests, complementary experience, or a chosen learning goal.
Suggest peer connections from participant-approved professional interests and goals. Explain each match in terms participants can correct, and keep an invitation separate from a connection both people have chosen to accept.
Before you start
Defined operating scope
An opt-in community or learning program connects participants around stated goals and experience.
Required source material
Obtain Opt-in participant introductions; Onboarding answers; Matching criteria. If connectors are unavailable, use authorized files with the same fields.
Decision and exception rules
A profile lacks matching consent. Exclude it from the round and request opt-in through the approved process.
Prepare the inputs
- participant_profiles
- Required
Opt-in introductions and approved answers
Keep visibility and matching consent.
- matching_goal
- Required
Shared interest or complementary experience
Define the purpose of the round.
- matching_rules
- Required
Constraints and allowed group size
Include exclusions and repeat-match policy.
- profile_evidence
- Required
References for interests and experience
Do not infer sensitive attributes.
Implementation, step by step
Establish the working record
- Confirm the selected records, effective versions and responsible owner.
- Check participant_profiles, matching_goal, matching_rules, profile_evidence before beginning. Record the source version and the selected scope; an unavailable value stays unknown rather than becoming an inferred fact.
Checkpoint: The input record identifies the selected participant_profiles and any missing required fields.
Build a profile from the participant’s approved information
- Build comparable profiles using only approved information and preserve the participant’s own wording for uncertain interests.
- Trace every match rationale to approved profile evidence.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Build a profile from the participant’s approved information.
Extract relevant interests, experience, and goals with supporting references
- Extract interests, experience and goals with references, distinguishing an offered skill from a skill the participant wants to learn.
- Check consent, exclusions, repeated pairings and whether claimed complementarity actually exists.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Extract relevant interests, experience, and goals with supporting references.
Compare profiles using the selected matching criteria
- Compare profiles against the round’s purpose and constraints, showing why a pair or small group may be useful.
- Trace every match rationale to approved profile evidence.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Compare profiles using the selected matching criteria.
Present proposed connections for participants to review
- Present suggestions for participant review, allow profile correction and record acceptance separately from the recommendation.
- Check consent, exclusions, repeated pairings and whether claimed complementarity actually exists.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Present proposed connections for participants to review.
Package the result and unresolved work
- Participants can correct their profiles and choose whether to connect. Do not infer sensitive traits or treat similarity as proof that a pairing will work.
- Do not infer sensitive traits or hidden personality compatibility.
Checkpoint: A browsable set of suggested peer connections and the reasons behind them. Unresolved items remain visible in the review record.
Decisions along the way
A profile lacks matching consent.
Exclude it from the round and request opt-in through the approved process.
Two participants seek the same expertise but neither offers it.
Label shared learning interest rather than complementary mentoring.
A participant corrects a key profile fact.
Recompute affected suggestions and avoid retaining the old rationale.
What you will produce
community-profiles-to-peer-matches-result.json
JSONA browsable set of suggested peer connections and the reasons behind them. Label proposed and completed states separately.
Include: participant_ids · matching_goal · evidence_based_reasons · constraints_checked · suggestion_status · participant_decisions · status · evidence_reference · review_note
community-profiles-to-peer-matches-review.md
MarkdownKeep the evidence and unresolved decisions needed to apply this result, including exceptions involving profile_evidence.
Include: source_reference · question · owner · next_action
Check the result
- Trace every match rationale to approved profile evidence.
- Check consent, exclusions, repeated pairings and whether claimed complementarity actually exists.
- Inspect participant_profiles and matching_goal in both the original and output; confirm that record identity and interpretation survived the transformation.
- Participants can correct their profiles and choose whether to connect. Do not infer sensitive traits or treat similarity as proof that a pairing will work.
When something goes wrong
A profile lacks matching consent.
Exclude it from the round and request opt-in through the approved process. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
Two participants seek the same expertise but neither offers it.
Label shared learning interest rather than complementary mentoring. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
A participant corrects a key profile fact.
Recompute affected suggestions and avoid retaining the old rationale. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Suggest useful peer connections within a community for the following bounded example; prepare the result for review.
Inputs
Synthetic example: P-1 offers procurement experience and wants analytics help. P-2 offers analytics and wants procurement context. Both opted into skill exchange.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result: Suggest a complementary exchange with those two explicit reasons. Do not claim compatibility, friendship or consent to contact until participants review the suggestion.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Trial a representative batch containing the ordinary case and the exception demonstrated above.
Record the baseline
Record current preparation time, review effort and correction types for the same records.
Agree success criteria
Agree acceptable review and error limits; measure participant-accepted matches; profile corrections and useful connections reported after introduction.
Stop or revise
A participant corrects a key profile fact. Pause affected records and apply this recovery: Recompute affected suggestions and avoid retaining the old rationale.
Keep the scope clear
- Do not infer sensitive traits or hidden personality compatibility.
- Participants control whether to connect and may correct or withdraw their profiles.
Check before using
Participants can correct their profiles and choose whether to connect. Do not infer sensitive traits or treat similarity as proof that a pairing will work.
Business activities
- Onboard customers, partners, and members
- Deliver courses and training
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Opt-in participant introductions · Onboarding answers · Matching criteria
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow