six-hats
Six Hats Debate Skill
How It Works
- User submits the topic — paste the decision, plan, or question in chat.
- User specifies output path — e.g.
Projects/my-debate/or any path. - Skill runs 3 rounds of sequential debate, one hat at a time.
- Blue hat moderates — summarizes and provides the final recommendation.
- Summary written to
{output_path}/debate-{timestamp}.md.
The Six Hats
| Hat | Role | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| White | Facts & Information | What do we know? What's unknown? What data exists? |
| Red | Emotion & Intuition | Gut feelings, hunches, what feels wrong even without evidence |
| Yellow | Optimism & Benefits | Why could this work? What's the best outcome? |
| Black | Caution & Risks | What could go wrong? What are the failure modes? |
| Green | Creativity & Alternatives | New ideas, different approaches, lateral thinking |
| Blue | Process & Moderation | Orchestrates the debate, manages time, writes final summary |
Debate Rules
- Each hat speaks sequentially: White → Red → Yellow → Black → Green → Blue
- Round 1: Each hat responds to the original topic
- Round 2: Each hat sees Round 1 output and can counter, amplify, or concede
- Round 3: Final statements — hats can shift positions based on the debate
- Blue hat does not contribute opinions during rounds; only moderates and summarizes at the end
Output Format
# Six Hats Debate: {topic}
**Date**: {timestamp}
**Rounds**: 3
---
## Final Recommendation (Blue Hat)
*Synthesized conclusion and recommended course of action.*
---
## Round 1
### White Hat
{facts and information}
### Red Hat
{emotion and intuition}
### Yellow Hat
{optimism and benefits}
### Black Hat
{caution and risks}
### Green Hat
{creativity and alternatives}
---
## Round 2
{...same structure...}
## Round 3
{...same structure...}
---
## Raw Debate Data
{all hat statements in order, unfiltered}
Workflow
- Read this SKILL.md
- Ask user for the topic and output path
- Run Round 1 — prompt each hat sequentially, collect responses
- Run Round 2 — feed Round 1 back to each hat, collect responses
- Run Round 3 — feed Round 2 back to each hat, collect responses
- Blue hat synthesizes → writes final recommendation
- Write complete debate file to
{output_path}/debate-{timestamp}.md - Report file path to user
Hat Prompt Templates
White Hat (Facts)
You are the White Hat in a structured six-hats debate.
Topic: {topic}
Round: {n}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
Focus: Facts, data, known information, gaps in knowledge.
Do NOT offer opinions or recommendations — only state what is known or unknown.
Your response should be 2-4 paragraphs.
Red Hat (Emotion)
You are the Red Hat in a structured six-hats debate.
Topic: {topic}
Round: {n}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
Focus: Gut feelings, emotional reactions, intuition without justification.
Speak from emotion — no need to rationalize.
Your response should be 2-4 paragraphs.
Yellow Hat (Optimism)
You are the Yellow Hat in a structured six-hats debate.
Topic: {topic}
Round: {n}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
Focus: Why this could work, best-case scenarios, benefits and value.
Be genuinely optimistic but ground it in logic.
Your response should be 2-4 paragraphs.
Black Hat (Caution)
You are the Black Hat in a structured six-hats debate.
Topic: {topic}
Round: {n}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
Focus: Risks, failure modes, why this could go wrong.
Be a devil's advocate — identify the sharpest objections.
Your response should be 2-4 paragraphs.
Green Hat (Creativity)
You are the Green Hat in a structured six-hats debate.
Topic: {topic}
Round: {n}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
Focus: New ideas, alternatives, lateral thinking.
Build on previous arguments or introduce entirely new angles.
Your response should be 2-4 paragraphs.
Blue Hat (Moderation)
You are the Blue Hat — the moderator and synthesizer.
Topic: {topic}
Previous positions: {prev_hats_output}
You have watched 3 rounds of debate. Now provide:
1. A final recommendation (what should be done, or the most defensible position)
2. Key points of agreement across hats
3. Key unresolved tensions
4. Suggested next steps or deeper questions
Format your final recommendation prominently. After that, include the raw debate summary.
Your response should be 4-6 paragraphs.
Notes
- Do not run hats in parallel — sequential builds better debate momentum
- If the topic is too vague, ask the user to clarify before starting
- Each round must complete fully before moving to the next round
- Always write the output file — do not skip this step
More from fimoklei/pm-ai-playbook
first-principles-decomposer
Break any problem down to fundamental truths, then rebuild solutions from atoms up. Use when user says "firstp", "first principles", "from scratch", "what are we assuming", "break this down", "atomic", "fundamental truth", "physics thinking", "Elon method", "bedrock", "ground up", "core problem", "strip away", or challenges assumptions about how things are done.
21optimize-docs
Condense markdown documentation for token efficiency while preserving all semantic meaning. Use when rules, documentation, or config files need optimization. Target 25-40% reduction through systematic condensation patterns.
19pre-mortem-analyst
Imagine the project already failed, then work backward to find why. More powerful than risk assessment because it assumes failure is certain. Use when user says "pre-mortem", "premortem", "imagine this failed", "what could go wrong", "risk analysis", "before we launch", "stress test", "what would kill this", "project risks".
19idea-challenger
Pre-launch red team analysis that identifies failure modes and validates assumptions before resource commitment. Use when evaluating new products/features/strategies, before significant resource allocation, when stakeholders seem overly optimistic, or when cost of failure would be high (reputation, budget, market position).
19inversion-strategist
Flip problems upside down - instead of "how to succeed", ask "how to definitely fail" then avoid those paths. Use when user says "invert", "inversion", "flip it", "opposite approach", "how would this fail", "avoid failure", "what NOT to do", "Munger", "anti-goals", "guarantee failure".
19security-threat-model
Repository-grounded threat modeling that enumerates trust boundaries, assets, attacker capabilities, abuse paths, and mitigations, and writes a concise Markdown threat model. Trigger only when the user explicitly asks to threat model a codebase or path, enumerate threats/abuse paths, or perform AppSec threat modeling.
17