agentleFS
ysskrishnaysskrishna/ai-agent-skills/skills/lateral-thinking/SKILL.md

lateral-thinking

Skill20 starsChanged 28 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use for lateral thinking, or when ideas feel stuck or incremental: "we've tried everything", "need a surprising angle", "break the pattern", "give me a wild idea that could work". Uses provocations and reframes. Skip for rule lookups or strict logical proofs.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    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:

    Gather first: If you can read the project or earlier attempts, check what was already tried so you do not repeat it.

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Never present a Po as a recommendation.

    line 56
  3. Distinctive:

    If a provocation touches safety, ethics or law, stop and name the conflict.

    line 57

≈ “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 Thinking

Edward de Bono's method for escaping a rut: movement before judgment. A provocative line is a stepping stone, never a final position.

When to use

  • Brainstorming stalled or every option is a small variation of the current one.
  • The user wants a surprising angle, a reframe, or to challenge an assumption they call "just how it works".
  • Conventional ideation already ran and produced nothing fresh.

Skip: a single compliant rule lookup, a tight logical proof, or users with no appetite for playful what-if moves.

Before you start

  1. State in one block: Stuck point (which pattern or assumption feels rigid) and Pass: Provocation, Extract principle, Concept fan, Candidates (or the alternate path below).
  2. Gather first. If you can read the project or earlier attempts, check what was already tried so you do not repeat it. Ask up to 3 questions only for safety or legal limits that tools cannot answer.
  3. Light path. Small ask: one Po, one principle, 2 ideas per fan level, 3 candidates.

Alternate paths (use only when the user asks):

  • Random entry: replace Provocation with one random noun or image, then bridge in 3 steps (property, analogy, mechanism, application).
  • Challenge implicit rules: list the rules everyone follows; for each give Challenge / Reframe / Smallest test; pick the load-bearing rule and give two ways to sidestep it; then Candidates only from that thread.

Moves

1. Provocation

One primary Po (it may be illogical or impossible):

Po: ... - Movement idea: what useful idea does this suggest if treated as a springboard?

2. Extract principle

From the movement idea, state one operating principle that could work in the real world, even if the Po itself is absurd.

3. Concept fan

Step back from the principle to broader aims, then fan forward. Three levels, per de Bono:

  • Directions: the broadest approaches ("make the problem disappear", "make waiting pleasant").
  • Concepts: general methods under each direction.
  • Ideas: specific, actionable ways to carry out a concept.

Give a few branches at each level. If nothing is good enough, step back one more level and fan out again.

4. Candidates

Several actionable ideas, each tagged near-term, stretch or experimental.

Rules

  1. Never present a Po as a recommendation. Always pair it with its movement idea or principle.
  2. If a provocation touches safety, ethics or law, stop and name the conflict. Do not rationalize harm.
  3. Judge only in Candidates, and only for tagging feasibility.

Pitfalls

  • A Po that is merely a bad idea. It should shift your thinking, not be wrong for its own sake.
  • Jumping to Candidates from the Po and skipping the principle. The principle is what makes it portable.
  • Fan levels that all say the same thing. Each level should widen or narrow, not repeat.

Worked example: references/example.md.

Checklist

  • Stuck point and Pass stated (alternate path noted if used)
  • Po paired with a movement idea, or the alternate path completed
  • Fan covers Directions, Concepts and Ideas
  • Candidates tagged near-term, stretch or experimental
  • No Po presented as policy

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.