Five Minds

---
name: five-minds
description: "Answer a question five completely different ways — as five independent minds with clashing worldviews — then converge on what survives. Use when asked for multiple perspectives, look at this from every angle, what would different people think, or give me a range of views not one answer. Produces five genuinely distinct takes (each committed to one worldview, not hedged), the tensions between them made explicit, and a final synthesis that keeps what's strongest — deliberately widening the range before narrowing it."
---

# 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."