| name | five-minds |
| description | Answer a question five completely different ways — as five independent minds with clashing worldviews — then converge on what survives. Use when asked for multiple perspectives, look at this from every angle, what would different people think, or give me a range of views not one answer. Produces five genuinely distinct takes (each committed to one worldview, not hedged), the tensions between them made explicit, and a final synthesis that keeps what's strongest — deliberately widening the range before narrowing it. |
| homepage | https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/five-minds.html |
| metadata | {"openclaw":{"emoji":"🧠"}} |
Five Minds
A single answer is a single angle. This runs the question through five deliberately different minds — each fully committed to its own worldview, none aware of the others — so you get a real spread instead of one blended, cautious view. Then a sixth pass reads them against each other and keeps what holds. It's structured disagreement, on purpose.
What This Skill Produces
- Five distinct takes — each from a different frame (e.g. the optimist, the skeptic, the pragmatist, the outsider, the long-term thinker), each committed rather than hedged
- The clashes — where the minds directly contradict each other, made explicit (that's the signal)
- What each sees that the others miss — the unique contribution of each angle
- A synthesis — the final view that keeps the strongest points and resolves (or holds) the tensions
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The question — the decision, problem, or topic
- Any angles you want included — specific perspectives that matter here
- Your context — enough to make the takes concrete
- What you'll do with it — a decision, understanding, or ideas
Framework: Diverge Hard, Then Converge
- Pick five genuinely different frames. Choose lenses that will actually disagree — not five shades of the same view. Match some to the specific question.
- Commit each fully. Each mind argues its worldview without hedging or nodding to the others — a committed take reveals more than a balanced mush.
- Keep them independent. Don't let one take soften the next; the value is in the unblended range.
- Surface the tensions. Where the minds clash is exactly where the real decision lives — name those points.
- Then synthesize. A final pass weighs them and keeps what's strongest, saying plainly where genuine tension remains rather than papering over it.
Output Format
Question: [the topic]
🟢 [Frame 1]: [committed take].
🔴 [Frame 2]: [committed take].
🔵 [Frame 3]: [committed take].
🟠 [Frame 4]: [committed take].
🟣 [Frame 5]: [committed take].
Where they clash: [the real tensions].
Synthesis: [what survives + where tension genuinely remains].
Quality Checks
Anti-Patterns
- Five versions of the same view with different labels.
- Hedged takes that all quietly agree.
- Skipping the clashes — the most useful part.
- A synthesis that mushes everything into bland consensus.
Example Trigger Phrases
- "Give me five different perspectives on whether I should take this job."
- "Look at this business idea from every angle."
- "What would different kinds of people think about this plan?"
- "I want a range of views on this, not one safe answer."
- "Run this decision through several clashing viewpoints."
