Hairstyle Selection

Goal and scope

Help a person select realistic, personally preferred haircuts and communicate the selected cut to a stylist. Separate (1) visible observations, (2) aesthetic hypotheses, (3) AI simulations, and (4) results validated by a real haircut. The client's preference overrides a generic face-shape rule. Do not claim one objectively most attractive haircut.

This skill covers haircut analysis, style shortlists, optional visual previews, styling advice, and barber handoff. It does not provide medical diagnosis of the scalp or hair loss, precise measurements from uncalibrated photos, or guaranteed reproduction of generated images.

Use the minimum necessary inputs

1. Establish the requested outcome: general ideas, specific style comparison, personalised preview, or barber handoff. Reuse known answers; do not restart a questionnaire at every step.
2. Use photographs only when the subject authorised their use. If consent is unknown for a third-party identifiable portrait, confirm it before sending the image to an additional service. Minimise metadata and identifying background. Do not claim metadata removal anonymises a face.
3. Determine only the decision-changing constraints: current natural hair behaviour (air-dried vs styled), hair length range, desired impression, styling time, willingness for heat/chemical treatments, glasses/headwear, and barber skill. Ask at most the most consequential unanswered question at a time; proceed with clearly labelled assumptions when reasonable.
4. If images are supplied, assess usable views and possible lens distortion. Do not demand seven photos for a quick style shortlist. If no images exist, offer qualitative options and identify limits.

Read photo standards when planning or validating multi-angle photography.

Reason from observations, not rigid typologies

• Record visible face outline, apparent proportions, forehead visibility, temples, jaw and cheek contours, head silhouette, existing cut, hair fall, apparent volume, cowlick/whorl and growth direction with uncertainty. Do not infer identity, ethnicity, underlying bone measurements, or medical conditions from appearance.
• Distinguish hair density from apparent fullness, and natural growth from deliberate styling. Do not diagnose thinning from a visible part or whorl.
• Describe evidence neutrally: Visible: the fringe falls forward after air-drying; Possible implication: preserve front length if a swept style is desired; Unknown: whether it will hold without heat.
• Separate cutting structure from finish: the same haircut can be styled as loose texture or a polished side part. Never equate scissor work with no use of clippers, or a low taper with a skin fade.

Read cut structures and style families when comparing candidate cuts or preparing a barber brief.

Recommendation workflow

1. Baseline: State what currently works and what might improve; don't assume a dramatic makeover is better.
2. Breadth: For open exploration, compare about 5–7 genuinely different families (short, medium, long). Do not count near-synonyms (e.g., loose side part and side sweep) as unrelated hairstyles. Treat perm/wave treatments as styling or texture options, not automatically separate cuts.
3. Fair comparison: Use the same criteria for every candidate: facial balance, compatibility with natural growth, styling feasibility, glasses/temple clearance, upkeep, and alignment with stated aesthetic. Show strengths and drawbacks; use qualitative assessments rather than invented precision or beauty percentages.
4. Shortlist: Recommend roughly three distinct finalists, explain why each is viable and what could go wrong, and name a first choice provisionally. Do not silently change rankings when new evidence arrives: explain what changed.
5. Reality check: A chemical treatment is recommended only where ordinary cut/heat styling is unlikely to meet the desired texture and the user accepts its cost and care. Do not recommend excessive thinning purely from perceived bulk.
6. Handoff: If the user intends to visit a barber, deliver a compact instruction brief specifying fringe/top, upper-side connection, temple/ear, crown/whorl, nape, desired finish, and explicit avoidances. Hair lengths in centimetres are illustrative starting targets, never measurements extracted from pictures.

Preview and barber-reference modes

Only generate or edit images when the user asks for visual outputs and a suitable tool is available. If none exists, provide a prompt and shooting plan rather than claiming pictures were generated.

• Discovery: One fixed frontal image, individual edits changing hairstyle only, and a labelled comparison sheet assembled after reviewing the images. Compare different cuts, not changing facial geometry or lighting.
• Shortlist: Add matched left/right oblique and profiles where useful. For a final barber package, use the seven-view convention in photo standards. A synthetic view of an unseen side/back is illustrative, not measured evidence.
• Image discipline: Keep the person's face, colour, camera perspective, expression and clothing as fixed as tools permit. Use source images for each actual angle when available; do not flip anatomical left/right. Don't put fine technical labels inside a generated photo if accuracy is critical—annotate and verify separately.
• Review: Reject variants with changed identity, contradictory lengths/taper heights, wrong angle names, a high fade when low taper was requested, or impossible crown/part continuity.

Read preview production and handoff for reusable prompts, deliverables, and quality checks.

Expected response contract

Tailor the detail to the request. For a full selection task, give:

1. Visible evidence and limits (brief; note air-dried versus styled and perspective).
2. Comparable options (name, defining structure, reason it could suit, trade-off).
3. Ranked finalists and rationale, explicitly provisional until an actual cut is evaluated.
4. Stylist-ready instructions for the selected cut, with cutting structure distinct from finishing steps, if requested.
5. Visual assets or preview plan only when requested; identify AI-generated views as illustrative.
6. Validation: check immediately after cut, after washing/air-drying, after home styling, and after growth. Reassess before chemical treatment or another major cut.

Stop/quality gate

Before finalising, verify: known user preferences reused; no overconfident geometry; no contradictory cut names; no precise photo-derived lengths; left/right views correct; sides match the desired fade/taper; user consent respected; no promise that a simulation is exact. If a key unknown prevents a decision, ask one focused question instead of presenting a long form.