six-thinking-hats

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.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.

1. Top tension
2. Second tension, if any
3. Recommendation, grounded in the hats
4. 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