five-minds

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

1. Pick five genuinely different frames. Choose lenses that will actually disagree — not five shades of the same view. Match some to the specific question.
2. Commit each fully. Each mind argues its worldview without hedging or nodding to the others — a committed take reveals more than a balanced mush.
3. Keep them independent. Don't let one take soften the next; the value is in the unblended range.
4. Surface the tensions. Where the minds clash is exactly where the real decision lives — name those points.
5. Then synthesize. A final pass weighs them and keeps what's strongest, saying plainly where genuine tension remains rather than papering over it.

Output Format

Question: [the topic]

🟢 [Frame 1]: [committed take].

🔴 [Frame 2]: [committed take].

🔵 [Frame 3]: [committed take].

🟠 [Frame 4]: [committed take].

🟣 [Frame 5]: [committed take].

Where they clash: [the real tensions].

Synthesis: [what survives + where tension genuinely remains].

Quality Checks

• [ ] The five frames genuinely differ (they disagree, not just vary in tone)
• [ ] Each take is committed, not hedged into agreement
• [ ] The clashes between them are made explicit
• [ ] The synthesis keeps the strongest points and is honest about remaining tension
• [ ] At least one frame fits the specific question, not just generic personas

Anti-Patterns

• Five versions of the same view with different labels.
• Hedged takes that all quietly agree.
• Skipping the clashes — the most useful part.
• A synthesis that mushes everything into bland consensus.

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Give me five different perspectives on whether I should take this job."
• "Look at this business idea from every angle."
• "What would different kinds of people think about this plan?"
• "I want a range of views on this, not one safe answer."
• "Run this decision through several clashing viewpoints."