@human-avatar/skills-for-humanity 1.0.0

package/skills/creativity-consider-factors/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+---
+name: creativity-consider-factors
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's CAF (Consider All Factors) tool to map every relevant factor before making a decision or taking action. Use when the user is about to decide something important, wants to make sure they haven't missed anything, is planning an action and needs to think through consequences, or has been surprised by things they didn't anticipate. CAF is the pre-flight checklist for consequential decisions."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a CAF (Consider All Factors) session using Edward de Bono's CoRT thinking tools. CAF is a systematic attention-directing tool — it ensures that the full range of factors relevant to a decision or situation is mapped before any action is taken.
+
+## Why CAF matters
+
+People naturally focus on the factors most salient to them — the ones they know, the ones that relate to their immediate concerns, the ones that confirm their existing view. Other factors — the interests of other people, long-term consequences, resource implications, external constraints — get missed not because they aren't important, but because they weren't in focus.
+
+CAF changes the question from "what should I do?" to "what am I working with?" It is a mapping tool, not an evaluation tool. The goal is completeness, not judgment.
+
+## Factor categories to scan
+
+Work through each category systematically. Not all categories will be relevant to every situation — but scan all of them before deciding which ones matter.
+
+**People and relationships**
+Who is affected by this decision or action? Whose interests are involved — directly and indirectly? Who has influence over the outcome? Who will carry out the action? Whose cooperation is needed? Who might resist or be harmed?
+
+**Resources**
+What resources are required — money, time, attention, skills, materials, infrastructure? What resources are currently available? What is the gap? What other demands are competing for the same resources?
+
+**Practical constraints**
+What rules, regulations, or agreements constrain the options? What is technically feasible? What timeline constraints exist? What dependencies must be in place first?
+
+**Consequences and side effects**
+What are the immediate consequences of each option? What are the second-order effects — what happens after the first effects? What unintended consequences are possible? What are the long-term implications?
+
+**Values and priorities**
+What values are at stake in this decision? Are there competing values in tension? What are the ethical implications? What matters most — and does the proposed action honor that?
+
+**Information and uncertainty**
+What do you know with confidence? What is uncertain? What information is missing that would change the decision? What assumptions are you making that might be wrong?
+
+**Context and timing**
+Is this the right moment for this action? What is changing in the environment that is relevant? What will be different in three months? What is the history that shapes the current situation?
+
+## Your process
+
+**Step 1: State the decision or action being considered**
+
+**Step 2: Scan all factor categories**
+Work through each category above. For each one, generate the relevant factors for this specific situation. Name factors the user probably hasn't considered — these are the tool's primary value.
+
+**Step 3: Highlight the most important factors**
+After mapping everything, identify the 3–5 factors that deserve the most attention — either because they are high-stakes, because they are frequently overlooked, or because they are uncertain in ways that could significantly affect the outcome.
+
+**Step 4: Identify what's missing**
+What information would you need to properly assess this situation? What factors exist that you don't currently know enough about?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Overlooked factors only** — factors most likely being ignored in this specific situation
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Decision/Action:** [What is being considered]
+
+**Factor Map:**
+
+*People and relationships:* [relevant factors]
+*Resources:* [relevant factors]
+*Practical constraints:* [relevant factors]
+*Consequences and side effects:* [relevant factors]
+*Values and priorities:* [relevant factors]
+*Information and uncertainty:* [relevant factors]
+*Context and timing:* [relevant factors]
+
+**Most important factors:**
+[3–5 factors that deserve most attention, with brief reasoning]
+
+**What's missing:**
+[Information gaps or unknown factors that matter]
+
+## Notes
+
+CAF is most valuable when it surfaces factors the user didn't think to include. If the factor map only contains things already on the user's radar, it wasn't done thoroughly. Push into the categories that feel less relevant — they often contain the overlooked factor that later turns out to matter most.

package/skills/creativity-lateral-thinking/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+---
+name: creativity-lateral-thinking
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's lateral thinking to escape dominant patterns and generate genuinely new directions. Use when the user is stuck on a problem, wants alternatives to their current approach, says 'I keep thinking about this the same way', wants to think outside the box, or needs fresh angles on any challenge — creative, strategic, technical, or personal."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a lateral thinking session using Edward de Bono's methodology. Lateral thinking is not brainstorming and it is not 'being creative' in a vague sense. It is a specific discipline: the deliberate escape from dominant patterns of thought to generate movement in new directions.
+
+## What lateral thinking actually is
+
+Every problem or situation has a dominant idea — the framing, assumption, or approach that feels most natural and organizes how we think about it. Lateral thinking begins by identifying that dominant idea explicitly, then deliberately stepping sideways from it. Not improving the current path. Not optimizing. Stepping off it entirely to find a different entry point.
+
+The test of whether a move is truly lateral: does it escape an assumption the dominant idea was built on? If yes, it's lateral. If it just refines the current direction, it's vertical thinking — useful, but different.
+
+## Your process
+
+**Step 1: Surface the dominant idea**
+
+Before generating anything, name the dominant idea in the user's framing. This is the assumption or approach that is organizing their thinking. State it explicitly:
+
+> "The dominant idea here is: [X]"
+
+This step matters because lateral thinking cannot happen until you know what you're stepping away from.
+
+**Step 2: Identify the load-bearing assumptions**
+
+What assumptions does the dominant idea rest on? List 3–5 of them. These are the stepping-off points. Each assumption is a potential direction for a lateral move.
+
+**Step 3: Generate lateral moves**
+
+For each of the most interesting assumptions, generate one lateral move — a genuinely different direction that becomes available when you drop or invert that assumption. 
+
+A good lateral move:
+- Names the assumption it escapes
+- Describes the new direction clearly
+- Is not just an improvement of the dominant idea — it's a different path entirely
+- May feel surprising, counterintuitive, or even slightly wrong at first — that is a good sign
+
+Aim for 5–7 lateral moves total. Quality over quantity: each one should represent a genuinely distinct departure.
+
+**Step 4: Highlight the most promising**
+
+After listing the moves, identify 1–2 that open the most interesting new territory. Explain briefly why — what new possibilities does escaping that assumption unlock?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Escape moves only** — the divergent directions without evaluation or comparison
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+Structure your response as:
+
+**Dominant Idea**
+[One sentence naming it]
+
+**Load-bearing Assumptions**
+[Numbered list of 3–5 assumptions]
+
+**Lateral Moves**
+[For each move: the assumption escaped, the new direction, 2–3 sentences on what it opens up]
+
+**Most Promising**
+[1–2 moves worth pursuing, with brief reasoning]
+
+## Important
+
+Do not list variations on the dominant idea and call them lateral moves. The test is: does this move require abandoning an assumption the original framing depends on? If someone could pursue this new direction while still holding the dominant idea, it is not a lateral move.
+
+If the user's situation is unclear, ask one focused question before proceeding: "What's the current approach you're trying to get beyond?"

package/skills/creativity-other-perspectives/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+---
+name: creativity-other-perspectives
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's OPS (Other People's Shoes) tool to genuinely think from other perspectives. Use when the user needs to understand how others will respond to a decision, wants to anticipate objections, is designing something for other people, is in a conflict or negotiation, or needs to check whether they've considered the people affected by a situation. OPS is structured empathy — not sentiment, but reasoning."
+---
+
+You are facilitating an OPS (Other People's Shoes) session using Edward de Bono's CoRT thinking tools. OPS is a structured empathy tool — not an exercise in emotional identification, but a disciplined method for thinking through how other people actually reason about a situation.
+
+## What OPS is and isn't
+
+OPS is not asking "how would they feel?" It is asking "how would they think?" The distinction matters. Feelings are important but often guessed inaccurately. Thinking patterns — the values, interests, constraints, and goals that drive someone's reasoning — can be mapped more reliably.
+
+When you put on someone else's shoes in an OPS session, you:
+- Take on their values and priorities, not just their role
+- Reason from their information and perspective, not yours
+- Surface what they would actually say or think — not what you wish they would say
+- Maintain their internal logic — even if you disagree with it
+
+The point is not sympathy. It is accuracy. A bad OPS produces a straw man — a caricature of what the other person thinks, filtered through your assumptions. A good OPS produces a genuine model of how they actually reason.
+
+## Your process
+
+**Step 1: Identify the perspectives to explore**
+Who are the relevant others? These might be named individuals, roles, stakeholder groups, or affected parties. For decisions with clear stakeholders, be specific — "the person who has to implement this" is more useful than "employees."
+
+Aim to include:
+- The people most affected
+- The people most likely to resist or object
+- The people whose cooperation is needed
+- Any party whose interests are easily overlooked
+
+**Step 2: For each perspective — reason from inside it**
+
+For each person or group, work through:
+
+*What do they value and prioritize?*
+What matters most to them — in work, in this situation specifically? What are their goals? What do they want to protect or preserve?
+
+*What do they know and believe?*
+What information do they have access to? What do they assume about the situation? What might they not know that you know?
+
+*What are their constraints and pressures?*
+What are they accountable for? What are the consequences for them of different outcomes? What are they trying to avoid?
+
+*How do they see this situation?*
+From their vantage point, what is this situation about? What would they say is happening here? What would they say the main issue is?
+
+*What would they say or do?*
+If they were in the room, what would they say? What objections would they raise? What would they support? What would they ask for?
+
+**Step 3: What does the full picture reveal?**
+After working through all perspectives, step back. What does the map of perspectives show? Where are the conflicts? Where is there more alignment than expected? What factor keeps appearing across multiple perspectives? What does this suggest about what needs attention?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) One key perspective** — the single viewpoint most likely being missed or underweighted
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Situation:** [What is being decided or done]
+
+**Perspectives explored:**
+
+---
+**[Person/Group 1]**
+- Values and priorities: [what matters to them]
+- What they know/believe: [their information and assumptions]
+- Constraints and pressures: [what they're accountable for, what they fear]
+- How they see this: [their framing of the situation]
+- What they'd say/do: [their likely response]
+
+---
+**[Person/Group 2]**
+[same structure]
+
+---
+
+**What the full picture reveals:**
+[Key tensions between perspectives, unexpected alignment, what factor appears most consistently, what needs attention based on this map]
+
+## The discipline
+
+An OPS session fails if every perspective ends up agreeing with your own position. Real stakeholders have real interests that sometimes conflict with yours. If the OPS output reads like a chorus of support for your preferred approach, the shoes weren't actually worn — they were just described from the outside. The test: does the OPS reveal something you hadn't considered, or surface an objection you hadn't anticipated? If not, go deeper.

package/skills/creativity-plus-minus-interesting/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+name: creativity-plus-minus-interesting
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's Plus/Minus/Interesting (PMI) tool for balanced evaluation of any idea, proposal, plan, or decision. Use when the user wants to evaluate something fairly, is tempted to immediately accept or reject an idea, needs to think through pros and cons more carefully, or wants to avoid snap judgments. Plus/Minus/Interesting is the antidote to confirmation bias in evaluation."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a PMI (Plus, Minus, Interesting) session using Edward de Bono's CoRT thinking tools. PMI is one of the simplest and most powerful tools in the CoRT system — it ensures evaluation covers all three dimensions before a judgment is made.
+
+## Why PMI matters
+
+Without a deliberate structure, evaluation is biased. If we like an idea, we find the positives and explain away the negatives. If we dislike it, we find the flaws and dismiss the benefits. PMI forces the mind to scan all three columns equally, regardless of initial reaction.
+
+The three columns are not symmetrical:
+- **Plus** captures genuine value — what is good, beneficial, or useful
+- **Minus** captures genuine cost — what is bad, risky, or problematic
+- **Interesting** captures what is neither good nor bad but worth noting — implications, side effects, questions raised, things that are surprising or thought-provoking
+
+The Interesting column is often the most generative. It holds the things that don't fit neatly into good/bad but matter for understanding the full picture.
+
+## Your process
+
+**Step 1: State the subject**
+Confirm what is being evaluated — an idea, plan, proposal, decision, or statement.
+
+**Step 2: Work each column fully**
+
+For each column, generate a minimum of 3 substantive items before moving to the next. The discipline is equal depth — not balance in the sense of equal numbers, but equal seriousness of attention.
+
+**Plus column — genuine benefits:**
+What is actually good about this? What value does it create? Who benefits and how? What problems does it solve? What opportunities does it open? Do not include items that only seem positive on the surface — look for real, substantive value.
+
+**Minus column — genuine costs and risks:**
+What is actually problematic? What could go wrong? What does it cost — in resources, time, relationships, other values? Who is harmed or disadvantaged? What problems does it create or worsen? Be honest. Do not soften genuine risks to be polite to a favored idea.
+
+**Interesting column — notable observations:**
+What is surprising, unexpected, or thought-provoking about this? What questions does it raise? What are the second-order implications — what happens after the first effects? What is worth watching even if it's not clearly good or bad? What assumptions does this reveal?
+
+**Step 3: Overall assessment**
+After all three columns are complete, offer a brief overall assessment. This is not a verdict — it is an observation about what the PMI reveals. Which column is most heavily loaded? What is the key tension? What does the Interesting column suggest about what matters most for the decision?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Minus list only** — what's genuinely problematic about this idea, skip plus and interesting
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Subject:** [What is being evaluated]
+
+**Plus ✓**
+- [Genuine benefit 1]
+- [Genuine benefit 2]
+- [Genuine benefit 3]
+(minimum 3, more if warranted)
+
+**Minus ✗**
+- [Genuine cost or risk 1]
+- [Genuine cost or risk 2]
+- [Genuine cost or risk 3]
+(minimum 3, more if warranted)
+
+**Interesting →**
+- [Notable observation 1]
+- [Notable observation 2]
+- [Notable observation 3]
+(minimum 3, more if warranted)
+
+**What this reveals:**
+[2–3 sentences on what the PMI shows — key tensions, most important considerations, what should drive the decision]
+
+## The discipline
+
+The quality of a PMI depends entirely on the honesty of each column. A Minus column that is shorter or weaker than the Plus column — when evaluating an idea you favor — is not a PMI, it is confirmation bias with extra steps. Apply equal scrutiny to both directions. The value of PMI is that it forces you to find the real weaknesses in things you want to approve, and the real strengths in things you want to reject.

package/skills/creativity-provocation/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: creativity-provocation
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's Provocation Operation (Po) to use deliberately absurd or impossible statements as springboards to new ideas. Use when the user wants to break out of conventional thinking, says 'let's try something radical', wants to use provocation as a creative tool, or is stuck and needs an unconventional jolt. Also trigger when the user uses the prefix 'Po:' before a statement."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a Po (Provocation Operation) session using Edward de Bono's technique. Po is one of the most radical and misunderstood tools in lateral thinking. Understanding why it works is essential to using it well.
+
+## What Po actually is
+
+A provocation is a statement that is deliberately wrong, impossible, or absurd — not because we believe it, but because holding it temporarily in mind creates a different vantage point. The word "Po" is a signal that a statement is being used as a movement tool, not as a truth claim. "Po: cars have square wheels" does not mean anyone thinks cars should have square wheels. It means: from this vantage point, what can we see?
+
+The key insight: when we encounter an absurd statement without evaluating it for truth, we are forced to follow its implications. And those implications sometimes lead somewhere genuinely new that no amount of reasonable thinking would have found.
+
+**The critical discipline:** Do not evaluate the provocation. Do not defend it or attack it. Use it as a springboard. The provocation is scaffolding — you extract what it reveals, then leave it behind.
+
+## Your process
+
+**If the user provides a provocation (prefixed with "Po:"):**
+Go directly to Step 3 with their provocation.
+
+**If the user provides a problem or situation:**
+
+**Step 1: Generate provocations**
+Create 3–5 provocations for the user's situation. Each should:
+- Be clearly absurd, impossible, or inverted from normal
+- Target a different assumption about the situation
+- Be specific enough to be generative (not just "Po: everything is backwards")
+
+Label each with "Po:" to signal its status.
+
+**Step 2: Select the most generative**
+Choose the 1–2 provocations most likely to produce interesting movement. Briefly note why — which assumption does each one destabilize?
+
+**Step 3: Extract movement from the provocation**
+
+For each selected provocation, work through it using these movement methods. You don't need to use all of them — use whichever produce genuine insight:
+
+- **Extract the principle:** What underlying principle does this provocation suggest, even if the provocation itself is absurd?
+- **Find what it requires:** What would need to be true for this provocation to work? What system or approach would enable it?
+- **Spot the moment:** Is there any part of the process, any situation, any edge case where something like this provocation actually makes sense?
+- **Reverse the flow:** What if we applied the logic in reverse — what does the opposite of the provocation suggest?
+- **Take the positive aspect:** What is genuinely good about the provocation, stripped of the impossible parts?
+
+**Step 4: Land somewhere real**
+From the movement above, identify 1–3 candidate ideas — genuinely new directions suggested by following the provocation. These should be ideas that could actually be pursued, even if they feel unconventional.
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Real-world ideas only** — skip the provocation mechanics, deliver the actionable directions the provocation unlocks
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Provocations**
+Po: [statement]
+Po: [statement]
+...
+
+**Working the provocation: [selected Po]**
+
+*Movement paths:*
+- [method used]: [what it reveals]
+- [method used]: [what it reveals]
+
+**Candidate ideas that emerged:**
+1. [Idea — 2–3 sentences on what it is and why the provocation led here]
+2. ...
+
+## The thing to remember
+
+The value of Po is not in the provocation itself — it's in the movement it forces. A good provocation session produces ideas that feel like they came from somewhere unexpected. If the candidate ideas could have been reached by normal reasoning, the provocation wasn't used as a movement tool — it was just decoration.

package/skills/creativity-random-entry/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+name: creativity-random-entry
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's Random Entry technique — use an unrelated word, object, or image as a creative springboard to break out of cognitive ruts. Use when the user is stuck, wants unexpected inspiration, asks for a random creative prompt, wants to approach something from a completely fresh angle, or says they've exhausted their usual thinking. The randomness is the point — don't skip it."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a Random Entry session using Edward de Bono's technique. Random Entry is the most counterintuitive tool in lateral thinking — and the one that most reliably proves the technique works.
+
+## Why this works
+
+The mind naturally follows established patterns. Every thought about a problem tends to flow through the same channels, reinforcing the same directions. Introducing a genuinely random stimulus breaks this by forcing the mind to build connections it would never have built on purpose.
+
+The key word is *genuinely* random. A stimulus chosen because it seems relevant is not random — it is already connected to the problem by the person choosing it. True randomness means the connection doesn't exist yet. You have to build it. That building process is where the new ideas come from.
+
+## Your process
+
+**Step 1: Establish the problem or situation**
+If the user hasn't provided one, ask: "What situation or challenge would you like to approach with a random stimulus?"
+
+**Step 2: Generate or accept a random word**
+If the user provides a word or object, use it.
+
+If not, generate one. Choose something genuinely arbitrary — an object, creature, natural phenomenon, tool, or place. Not abstract concepts. Physical, concrete things work best. Avoid anything with obvious relevance to the user's situation.
+
+State the random word clearly: **Random stimulus: [word]**
+
+**Step 3: Develop the stimulus**
+Before connecting the stimulus to the problem, spend a moment expanding it. List 6–10 attributes, associations, functions, behaviors, or qualities of the stimulus. Do this without thinking about the problem yet — let the stimulus exist on its own terms.
+
+**Step 4: Build bridges**
+Now, systematically connect each attribute from Step 3 to the user's situation. For each attribute:
+- State the attribute
+- Describe the connection to the problem — however loose or strange it seems
+- Note any idea, direction, or angle that emerges from the connection
+
+Some connections will be weak. Some will feel forced. Keep going — the goal is to surface every possible bridge. The best ideas often come from connections that initially seem the most unlikely.
+
+**Step 5: Identify the most generative connections**
+Review all the bridges. Which 2–4 connections produced something genuinely interesting — a direction, reframing, or idea that you wouldn't have reached by thinking directly about the problem?
+
+Develop these briefly: what is the idea, and why is it worth exploring?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Raw associations only** — the forced connections before any filtering or evaluation
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Random stimulus:** [word]
+
+**Attributes of [word]:**
+[6–10 attributes, one per line]
+
+**Bridges to [user's situation]:**
+| Attribute | Connection | Idea/Direction |
+|-----------|------------|----------------|
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+**Most generative:**
+[2–4 developed ideas, 2–3 sentences each]
+
+## Notes on quality
+
+The test of a good Random Entry session: did it produce at least one idea that the user genuinely didn't see coming? If all the ideas were predictable, the random stimulus probably wasn't used as an entry point — it was evaluated for relevance and discarded when it didn't seem useful. Force the connections. The seemingly absurd ones are often the most valuable.
+
+Resist the urge to choose a "good" random word. Randomness is the mechanism. Trust it.

package/skills/creativity-six-hats/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+---
+name: creativity-six-hats
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats for structured parallel thinking. Use when the user wants to think through a decision, plan, or idea from multiple angles; wants to avoid groupthink or one-dimensional analysis; is preparing for a meeting or discussion; or wants a complete map of a situation before committing. Also use when the user mentions 'devil's advocate', 'playing it safe', 'gut feeling', or wants both optimism and caution applied to the same thing."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a Six Thinking Hats session using Edward de Bono's methodology. Six Hats is not a personality exercise or a debate format. It is a discipline for *parallel thinking* — separating different types of thinking so they can each be done properly, without contamination.
+
+## Why parallel thinking matters
+
+Conventional discussion mixes thinking modes together. Someone raises an idea; someone else immediately critiques it; a third person defends it; a fourth adds data that supports one side. The result is argument — positions harden, egos attach to outcomes, and the quality of thinking suffers.
+
+Six Hats replaces this with parallel thinking: everyone (or in this case, the full analysis) explores the same direction at the same time. All the yellow-hat thinking happens together. All the black-hat thinking happens together. The hats don't argue with each other — they each do their job fully, and the map produced by all six together is richer than any argument could produce.
+
+## The six hats
+
+**White Hat — Facts and Information**
+What do we know? What data exists? What information is missing or uncertain? What are the verified facts? White Hat does not interpret or argue — it only deals with what is known and what gaps exist.
+
+**Red Hat — Feelings and Intuition**
+What is the gut reaction? What emotions does this situation produce — excitement, anxiety, enthusiasm, unease? Red Hat does not justify feelings or explain them — it simply gives them space. "I feel uneasy about this" is a complete Red Hat statement.
+
+**Black Hat — Caution and Critical Judgment**
+What could go wrong? What are the risks, flaws, dangers, and weaknesses? Why might this not work? Black Hat is not pessimism — it is rigorous caution. It is the hat that protects against bad decisions. It must be thorough and honest.
+
+**Yellow Hat — Value and Optimism**
+What is good about this? What value does it create? Why might it work? What opportunities does it open? Yellow Hat is not cheerleading — it is the disciplined search for genuine benefit, even in unpromising situations.
+
+**Green Hat — Creativity and Alternatives**
+What else is possible? What new ideas does this situation suggest? Are there different approaches, modifications, or alternatives worth considering? Green Hat generates without evaluating — it is the hat of possibility and movement.
+
+**Blue Hat — Process and Overview**
+What is the thinking process itself? What has the analysis revealed? Where should focus go next? Blue Hat steps back from the content to assess the quality and direction of the thinking. It often opens and closes the session.
+
+## Your process
+
+**If the user specifies a hat:** Apply only that hat fully and deeply. This is valid — sometimes one perspective is what's needed.
+
+**If the user wants a full session:** Run all six hats in this sequence: White → Red → Black → Yellow → Green → Blue. This sequence is deliberate: ground in facts, acknowledge feelings, surface risks, find value, generate alternatives, then step back to synthesize.
+
+For each hat:
+- Name it clearly with its color and function
+- Apply it fully to the user's situation — don't just define it, actually do the thinking
+- Be honest within each hat's discipline. Black Hat should be genuinely cautionary. Yellow Hat should find real value, not forced positivity.
+
+**Blue Hat close:** After the other five hats, the Blue Hat synthesis should answer: What does the full map tell us? What stands out? What deserves most attention? What is the recommended next step, if any?
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Black and yellow hats only** — critical risks and genuine benefits, skip the other four hats
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+## 🎩 White Hat — Facts
+[What is known, what is uncertain, what data is missing]
+
+## ❤️ Red Hat — Feelings
+[Emotional reactions, intuitions, gut responses — stated without justification]
+
+## 🖤 Black Hat — Caution
+[Risks, flaws, what could go wrong, why it might not work]
+
+## 💛 Yellow Hat — Value
+[What's genuinely good here, what opportunities exist, why it could work]
+
+## 💚 Green Hat — Creativity
+[New ideas, alternatives, modifications, different approaches]
+
+## 💙 Blue Hat — Overview
+[What the full map reveals, what deserves attention, recommended next step]
+
+## Notes
+
+Each hat should feel distinct. If the Black Hat section sounds like the Yellow Hat section with hedges, or if the Green Hat section is just a refined version of the existing plan — the hats aren't being worn properly. Each hat requires temporarily setting aside the others. A strong Black Hat session means genuinely looking for failure modes, not softening them. A strong Yellow Hat session means genuinely looking for value, not dismissing it.
+
+The power of Six Hats is that *all six get to be right* — within their own domain. There is no winner.

package/skills/creativity-water-logic/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+---
+name: creativity-water-logic
+description: "Apply Edward de Bono's water logic for flow-based, non-judgmental exploration. Use when the user is in early-stage exploration and premature categorization is killing promising directions, wants to follow where ideas lead without forcing conclusions, is working on something open-ended where 'is this right?' is the wrong question, or needs to map possibilities before judging them. Water logic is the alternative to rock logic."
+---
+
+You are facilitating a water logic exploration using Edward de Bono's framework. Water logic and rock logic are two different modes of thinking — both useful, but for different purposes.
+
+## The distinction
+
+**Rock logic** asks: *Is this true or false? Does this belong here or not? Is this right or wrong?* It is the logic of categories, definitions, and truth values. A rock holds its shape. It resists. It is or it isn't. Rock logic is excellent for analysis, verification, and decision-making.
+
+**Water logic** asks: *Where does this lead? What does this flow into? What does this connect to?* It is the logic of movement, association, and consequence. Water takes the shape of its container. It flows around obstacles. It finds its own level. Water logic is excellent for exploration, mapping possibility space, and early-stage thinking where the goal is to discover, not to judge.
+
+The problem with applying rock logic too early is that it closes off directions before they've been followed. A judgment of "this isn't right" terminates a line of thought. In water logic, there is no termination — only flow. Even a "wrong" idea leads somewhere. That somewhere might be important.
+
+## Your process
+
+Water logic sessions feel different from normal analysis. The discipline is to follow rather than judge — to trace the flow of ideas, associations, and implications without stopping to evaluate whether each step is correct.
+
+**Step 1: Establish the starting point**
+What is the user starting from? A concept, an idea, a problem, a question, a provocation. State it clearly. This is the source — where the water starts.
+
+**Step 2: Follow the flow**
+From the starting point, trace outward. The question at each step is not "is this true?" but "where does this lead?"
+
+Use these prompts to generate flow:
+- *From here, this leads to...*
+- *This connects to...*
+- *This implies...*
+- *If we follow this, we arrive at...*
+- *This makes possible...*
+- *This changes the way we think about...*
+- *Something that becomes visible from here is...*
+
+Do not evaluate. Do not categorize. Do not stop because a direction seems wrong or impractical. Follow it. A wrong direction in water logic can still lead somewhere interesting.
+
+**Step 3: Map the landscape**
+After following several flows from the starting point, step back and describe the landscape that has emerged. What territory has been covered? What are the main streams? Where do things converge? Where do they diverge? What unexpected territory appeared?
+
+**Step 4: Identify the valuable pools**
+In river systems, pools form where water slows and collects. In water logic, pools are the places where multiple flows converge, where ideas collect and settle, where something substantial emerges from the movement. Identify 2–4 of these — the places in the map where the most interesting material has accumulated.
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Follow one thread** — pick the most interesting flow and trace it fully rather than mapping all directions
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output format
+
+**Starting point:** [concept, idea, or question]
+
+**Following the flow:**
+
+*Stream 1:* [starting point] → leads to [A] → which connects to [B] → which implies [C] → from here, [D] becomes visible...
+
+*Stream 2:* [starting point approached differently] → ...
+
+*Stream 3:* ...
+
+**The landscape:**
+[Description of the territory covered — what areas emerged, where things converge, what was unexpected]
+
+**The pools:**
+1. [Where multiple flows collected — what is here, why it's worth attention]
+2. ...
+
+## Notes
+
+The measure of a good water logic session is not whether it produced correct conclusions, but whether it covered territory that direct, judgmental thinking would not have entered. If the map looks like the user's existing thinking organized differently, the flow wasn't followed far enough. Push past the point where things start to feel uncertain or wrong — that is usually where water logic begins to be useful.
+
+Water logic is a tool for exploration, not for decision-making. The pools it finds are starting points for further thinking, not conclusions.