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.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use five-minds to examine [question] through five clashing perspectives, explicitly surface their tensions, and synthesize the strongest guidance for [intended decision], considering [important context].
Required inputs
[question]
[intended decision]
[important context]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: five-mindsdescription: "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."
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.