six-thinking-hats
Skill20 starsChanged 29 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use for Six Thinking Hats or de Bono's parallel thinking, or when a decision or idea needs facts, gut feel, risks, benefits and new options kept apart: "look at this from all sides", "full perspective check". Skip for plain factual questions or single-angle hot takes.
5 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qetheir own version, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- deciqAI/knowledge-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 7, 2026
- isjiamu/jiamu-skillstheir own version, first seen Jul 5, 2026
- fimoklei/pm-ai-playbooktheir own version, first seen May 31, 2026
- itzcull/thinking-skillstheir own version, first seen May 9, 2026
Other versions5 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 5
- proffesor-for-testing/agentic-qe★ 524same name
- isjiamu/jiamu-skills★ 131same name
- fimoklei/pm-ai-playbook★ 42same name
- deciqAI/knowledge-skills★ 13same name
- itzcull/thinking-skills★ 3same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analytical-thinkingSkill
- creative-thinkingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- design-thinkingSkill
- ethical-thinkingSkill
- fermi-estimationSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- five-whysSkill
- lateral-thinkingSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- strategic-thinkingSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- systems-thinkingSkill
- thinking-method-selectorSkill
- tradeoff-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
2
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 26
Gather first: If you can read files, search or run queries, do it before filling White.
- Distinctive: line 41
Never mix two hats in one section.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Six Thinking Hats
Edward de Bono's parallel thinking: everyone wears the same hat at the same time, so facts, feelings, risks, benefits and new ideas stop arguing inside one reply. One focus question, six roles in sequence.
When to use
- A decision, plan or idea where the user keeps mixing "what is true", "how I feel", "what could break" and "what could be great".
- The user names the method, de Bono, or asks for a hat-by-hat pass.
- A brainstorm or review that needs structure and a closing synthesis.
Skip: factual lookups, execution-only work, quick opinions where the user does not want six separate passes.
Before you start
- Open with a short Blue (open) block: focus question (one sentence), mode, hat order. This block is the opening Blue pass; do not print a second opening section.
- Gather first. If you can read files, search or run queries, do it before filling White. Ask up to 3 questions only for what tools cannot answer, then proceed and note gaps in plain words.
- Light path. Small ask: 2 bullets per hat, 3-bullet synthesis. Otherwise 3 bullets per hat; add detail only when the user asks for depth.
Modes
| Mode | Hat order | Use for |
| Full (default) | Blue, White, Red, Black, Yellow, Green, Blue | Broad decisions |
| Creative | Blue, Green, Yellow, Red, Blue | Idea generation (no early criticism) |
| Risk | Blue, White, Black, Blue | Risk scans, failure prevention |
| Decision | Blue, White, Black, Yellow, Blue | Go / no-go |
| Custom | User's order, then closing Blue | Only the six standard hats; confirm the order, and state in the order line that the closing Blue was added if the user left it out |
The hats
Never mix two hats in one section.
Blue: process. Frames and synthesizes. Never adds new facts, risks, ideas or recommendations.
White: facts. Data, evidence, gaps. No interpretation. Tag every bullet:
[KNOWN]verifiable from the user or a reliable source[ASSUMED]working assumption[UNKNOWN]missing information that limits confidence
Red: feelings. Gut reactions, enthusiasm, resistance. User-stated emotions pass through verbatim, marked stated. Inferred emotions use "might" or "could", never asserted as fact.
Black: risks. Each bullet: Risk: specific failure mode, Mitigation: concrete action.
Yellow: value. Each bullet: Benefit: concrete upside, Condition: what must hold.
Green: new options. One distinct option per bullet. Generate only; no evaluation. When stuck, use reversal, analogy or constraint removal.
Blue synthesis (closing)
A tension is where one hat pulls against another (for example a Yellow benefit that holds only if a Black risk is mitigated). Use only what the hats produced.
- Top tension
- Second tension, if any
- Recommendation, grounded in the hats
- Next step, with owner and timeframe if known
Light path: key tension, recommendation, next step. Then ask whether to iterate, expand one hat, or stop.
Pitfalls
- Black hat leaking into Green ("but that would never work"). Park it for the Black pass.
- Red hat filled with analysis. Red is a reaction, not a reason.
- Blue synthesis that slips in a new idea. Move it back to Green or drop it.
- User anchored on one lens (only complaining or only excited): name it and lead with the contrasting hat.
Worked example: references/example.md.
Checklist
- Blue (open) block: focus, mode, hat order
- Hats run in the declared order, one section each
- White bullets tagged; Black has Risk + Mitigation; Yellow has Benefit + Condition
- Red: inferred emotions hedged, stated emotions verbatim
- Green: one option per bullet, no evaluation
- Closing Blue adds nothing new
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
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.

