lateral-thinking · diff
v2026.5.17 to v2026.5.17
7 added, 6 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: lateral-thinking
description: >
- Use this skill when the user asks for lateral thinking or wants to break a
- sticky pattern—provocations, concept fans, challenge questions, and deliberate
- reframes to escape local optima. Use when ideation feels stuck, options feel
- incremental, or they want surprising angles (including after conventional
- brainstorming stalls), even if they never say "lateral thinking" or
- "provocation". Skip when they need a single compliant rule lookup, tight
+ Use this skill when the user asks for lateral thinking (including naming it
+ or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants to
+ break a sticky pattern—provocations, concept fans, challenge questions, and
+ deliberate reframes to escape local optima. Use when ideation feels stuck,
+ options feel incremental, or they want surprising angles (including after
+ conventional brainstorming stalls), even if they never say "lateral thinking"
+ or "provocation". Skip when they need a single compliant rule lookup, tight
logical proof with no exploration phase, or no appetite for playful what-if
moves.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: ysskrishna
version: "2026.5.17"
---
# Lateral Thinking
Movement before judgment. Treat provocative lines as **stepping stones**, not final positions.
**How to run it with this skill:** one clearly headed section per move in the default order from Setup (Provocation (Po) → Extract principle → Concept fan → Candidates), or the alternate path the user chose.
---
## Setup (run before starting)
In one short block:
1. **Stuck point** — what pattern or assumption feels rigid?
2. **Default pass** — Provocation (Po) → Extract principle → Concept fan → Candidates (state this line)
If safety or legal constraints are unclear, ask at most 3 questions in one message before generating provocations. Note any remaining gaps in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).
If the user asks for **random stimulus** instead of a Po, replace the **Provocation** step with **Random entry**: one random noun or image, then **several bridges** (property → analogy → mechanism → application) into ideas.
If the user asks to **challenge implicit rules**, replace **Provocation** / **Extract principle** / **Concept fan** with: list implicit rules → for each, **Challenge / Reframe / Test** (smallest experiment) → **Escape** (two ways to sidestep the load-bearing rule) → then **Candidates** only from that thread.
---
## The Moves
### Provocation
Offer **one primary Po** (statement can be illogical or impossible) formatted:
> **Po:** … — **Movement idea:** what useful idea does this **suggest** if we treat it as a springboard?
### Extract principle
From the movement idea, state **one operating principle** that *could* work in the real world (even if the Po itself is absurd).
### Concept fan
Widen from the principle along three directions — **broaden**, **deepen**, **redirect** — with **several branches** per direction unless the user wants more.
### Candidates
**Several** actionable ideas. Tag each: `near-term` / `stretch` / `experimental`.
---
## Execution Rules
1. Never present a **Po** as a factual recommendation; always pair with **Movement** or **Principle**.
2. If a provocation touches safety, ethics, or law, **stop** and surface the conflict explicitly — do not rationalize harm.
3. One response for all moves unless interactive pacing is requested.
---
## Checklist (verify before responding)
- [ ] Setup: stuck point + default pass (note if Random entry or rule-challenge path used)
- [ ] Po paired with movement; or alternate path completed as requested
- [ ] Concept fan has three directions with multiple branches each
- [ ] Candidates tagged near-term / stretch / experimental
- [ ] No Po presented as literal policy