agentleFS
daniumdanium/lateral-thinking/skills/lateral/SKILL.md

lateral

Skill311 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Lateral thinking toolkit router — when you're stuck, going in circles, need fresh ideas, or standard brainstorming keeps producing predictable results, this diagnoses the symptom and applies the right technique from the toolkit (random-stimulus, provocation, inversion, concept-fan, analogy, scamper, six-hats, worst-idea). Triggers include "lateral thinking", "I'm stuck on a creative problem", "we're going in circles", "need fresh ideas", "try a different angle", "break out of the box", "ideas all feel the same", "predictable brainstorm". Do NOT use for analytical work like debugging, code review, or implementation tasks.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Pick exactly one technique: Never route to a second technique in the same pass.

    line 30
  2. Distinctive:

    If the target itself is unclear, the chosen technique's own Step 1 will ask for it.

    line 34

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Lateral

What this does

Being stuck has shapes. Ideas that all feel the same is a different problem from a constraint that feels unbreakable, which is different again from suspecting you are solving the wrong problem. Each shape has a technique that fits it.

This skill diagnoses the symptom, picks exactly one technique, and runs it inline. It is a router, not a technique of its own.

Decision table

SymptomTechnique
Ideas all feel the same; brainstorm output is predictablerandom-stimulus
A constraint or rule feels unbreakableprovocation
Requirements assume things nobody has questionedinversion
We might be solving the wrong problemconcept-fan
The solution works but feels derivativeanalogy
We have one idea and need variationsscamper
A decision is being made too fast / everyone agreessix-hats
Everything feels timid, safe, cautiousworst-idea

Routing procedure

  1. Diagnose. Match the user's symptom to the table. If the symptom is unclear, ask exactly one focused question — do not interrogate.
  2. Pick exactly one technique. Never route to a second technique in the same pass. If another looks promising, offer it as a next move once the first has finished.
  3. Read ../<technique>/SKILL.md — relative to this file — and follow it inline. Do not invoke it as a separate skill; read the file and execute its workflow yourself, including its honesty mechanics.
  4. Refuse analytical work politely. Debugging, code review, and implementation are not creative targets. Suggest an analytical approach instead. Redesigning or ideating about such a process is a valid creative target: "reinvent our code-review ritual" is in scope; "review this PR" is not.

If the target itself is unclear, the chosen technique's own Step 1 will ask for it. Do not ask twice.

If the technique file is missing

A partial install may leave this router without its siblings. Do not fail — run a degraded session from the condensed core loop below, then tell the user:

This is the condensed version of the technique. The full skill carries reference material — stimulus pools, question banks, worked examples — that makes the session substantially better. To install the complete toolkit: npx skills add danium/lateral-thinking

Condensed core loops

random-stimulus — Pick 8–12 random unrelated things across at least five categories. List each one's properties. Force a connection to the target. Keep an idea only if you could not have reached it without the stimulus; abandon the rest visibly. Scan hits and abandonments for a meta-pattern.

provocation — State 4–6 deliberately wrong assertions about the problem: escape a rule, reverse a relationship, exaggerate a quantity, distort the sequence, assert a wishful fantasy as fact. Extract movement from each — the principle inside it, what would happen moment to moment, what differs from today. Shape live threads into ideas.

inversion — List 5–8 assumptions behind the current approach. Flip each into its strongest plausible opposite. Ask where each flip is already true, and who profits from it today. Develop the survivors; mark the dead flips dead.

concept-fan — Ask "what is this a way of doing?" twice to climb to broader concepts. At each level, fan out 3–4 alternative concepts that serve the level above. Drop back down to concrete implementations for the promising ones. Prune branches that are the original wearing a coat of paint.

analogy — State the problem's structure in one sentence: actors, flows, bottleneck. Pick 3–5 structurally similar domains distant from the target. Map the roles. Transfer what each domain does about the bottleneck — mechanisms, not aesthetics.

scamper — Run the existing idea through Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put-to-other-use, Eliminate, Reverse. Three to four pointed questions each; answer only the ones that bite. Empty operations are normal — show them empty. Collect the hits into concrete variants.

six-hats — Take the decision through six unblended passes: White (facts and missing data), Red (gut feelings, unjustified), Black (risks tied to mechanisms), Yellow (benefits tied to mechanisms), Green (alternatives, one abandoning the premise), Blue (synthesis with a confidence level).

worst-idea — Design 5–8 genuinely terrible solutions, each plausible enough that someone has shipped it. Name the mechanism that makes each one bad. Invert the mechanisms — not the ideas — into features.

What NOT to do

  • Don't run two techniques in one pass. Offer the second as a next move.
  • Don't skip the chosen technique's honesty mechanics. The visible abandonments are the point; a session where everything works is a session that was faked.
  • Don't push the user toward a decision. These techniques diverge. Convergence belongs to the user.
  • Don't route analytical work anywhere. Refuse it and say why.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.