메뉴
Use when a team needs to make a decision, evaluate a proposal, or solve a problem and wants to avoid groupthink, emotional conflict, or one-dimensional analysis.
기본적으로 소스를 먼저 확인하는 Prompt가 선택됩니다. 직접 명령으로 전환하거나 로컬 사본을 다운로드할 수도 있습니다.
설치 여부를 결정하기 전에 SKILL.md와 SkillsMP에 표시된 보조 파일을 읽어 보세요.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
직접 명령은 검토 Prompt를 거치지 않습니다. 실행하기 전에 소스를 확인하세요.
npx skills add https://github.com/jeffreytse/grimoire-core --skill run-six-thinking-hats명령은 한 줄로 유지됩니다. 복사하기 전에 가로로 스크롤해 전체 내용을 확인하세요.
로컬 사본을 원하시나요? SkillsMP에서 현재 제공할 수 있는 파일을 다운로드하세요.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
SKILL.md 표시 중
| name | run-six-thinking-hats |
| description | Use when a team needs to make a decision, evaluate a proposal, or solve a problem and wants to avoid groupthink, emotional conflict, or one-dimensional analysis. |
| source | Edward de Bono, "Six Thinking Hats", 1985 (Little, Brown and Company) — Widely adopted at IBM, Siemens, Federal Express, British Airways, ABB, Prudential |
| tags | ["decision-making","group-thinking","meetings","team","groupthink-reduction","problem-solving"] |
| verified | true |
Structure group thinking by having everyone wear the same "hat" simultaneously, separating facts, emotions, risks, benefits, creativity, and process into distinct rounds.
Adopted by: IBM, Siemens, Federal Express, British Airways, ABB, Prudential, and thousands of Fortune 500 teams. de Bono's methods were formally adopted in the national curricula of the UK, Australia, and Singapore. Used by McKinsey and BCG facilitators for structured client workshops. Impact: IBM reported 75% reduction in meeting time on decisions after adopting parallel thinking. Separating thinking modes eliminates the adversarial dynamic of traditional debate — ego, status, and seniority stop corrupting the reasoning. Why best: Traditional debate is a zero-sum contest — whoever argues hardest wins, regardless of correctness. Six Hats makes every thinking role temporary and shared; no one "owns" the critical or optimistic position. The Black Hat critic and the Yellow Hat optimist are roles, not personalities — removing the identity threat that shuts down honest analysis.
Sources: Edward de Bono, "Six Thinking Hats" (1985); de Bono Group case studies (IBM, Siemens, Federal Express); adoption in national education curricula (UK, AU, SG)
| Hat | Mode | Question it answers |
|---|---|---|
| White | Facts | What do we know? What data is missing? |
| Red | Emotions | What is our gut feeling? What do we fear or love about this? |
| Black | Caution | What could go wrong? What are the risks and flaws? |
| Yellow | Optimism | What is the best case? What value does this create? |
| Green | Creativity | What alternatives exist? What new angles haven't we tried? |
| Blue | Process | What hat do we use next? What is the summary? |
One person wears the Blue Hat for the session. Their role:
The Blue Hat facilitator does not contribute content — only manages the process.
State the decision or problem in one sentence before the session begins. Everyone must agree on the question — ambiguity here wastes every subsequent round.
Bad: "Let's discuss the new pricing strategy."
Good: "Should we raise the enterprise tier price by 20% in Q3?"
Don't use all six hats in every session. Match the sequence to the situation:
Decision evaluation (most common): Blue → White → Yellow → Black → Green → Red → Blue
Creative problem-solving: Blue → White → Green → Yellow → Black → Red → Blue
Quick risk check (15-min version): Blue → Black → Green → Blue
Emotionally charged topic: Blue → Red (clear the air first) → White → Yellow → Black → Blue
Everyone wears the same hat simultaneously — this is the core rule. No one is allowed to argue from a different hat during a round.
Time-box each round: 5–10 min for most; 3 min for Red Hat.
The facilitator summarizes each hat's output in 1–2 sentences and states:
Write the summary where the team can see it. Do not leave the room without a documented output.
Mixing hats mid-round. Someone in a Yellow Hat round says "but what about the risk of…" — this is Black Hat thinking. Redirect immediately: "Black Hat concerns go in the Black Hat round."
Skipping Red Hat. Teams skip it because it feels soft. Red Hat surfaces the emotional undercurrent that will kill implementation even if the logic is sound. Don't skip it.
Using Black Hat as veto power. Black Hat identifies risks — it does not decide. A long Black Hat list does not automatically reject the proposal; Green Hat generates mitigations.
No Blue Hat close. The session produces rich input but no decision. Always end with a documented Blue Hat summary. Input without output is just a meeting.