cofin/perspectives

Perspectives

Shared prompt library for structured multi-perspective analysis. Provides stance prompts (advocate, critic, neutral) and critical thinking frameworks used by other Flow skills.

<context>

Overview

This skill provides the foundation that other skills build on:

• Stance prompts — three perspectives (advocate, critic, neutral) each with ethical guardrails that prevent harmful analysis
• Critical thinking framework — structured reassessment pattern for evaluating claims and assumptions

Typically loaded by other skills (challenge, consensus, persona skills) rather than invoked directly. Can be invoked directly when you want raw stance prompts for custom analysis.

References Index

• Stance Prompts — Advocate, critic, and neutral perspective prompts with ethical guardrails
• Critical Thinking Framework — CRITICAL REASSESSMENT pattern and anti-patterns

</context> <workflow> ## Workflow

1. Identify the core claim or decision -- Clearly state the problem or proposal that needs analysis.
2. Apply the Advocate perspective -- Identify the benefits, opportunities, and strongest arguments in favor of the proposal.
3. Apply the Critic perspective -- Identify the risks, trade-offs, and failure modes. Challenge assumptions and reveal blind spots.
4. Apply the Neutral perspective -- Objectively weigh the evidence, consider alternatives, and identify the conditions under which the proposal succeeds or fails.
5. Synthesize the findings -- Combine the perspectives into a balanced summary with actionable recommendations and a clear risk assessment. </workflow>

<guardrails> ## Guardrails

• Avoid confirmation bias -- Actively seek evidence that contradicts your preferred conclusion.
• Ensure diversity of viewpoints -- Don't just pick the easiest arguments; look for subtle or non-obvious perspectives.
• Respect ethical and safety constraints -- Never generate analysis that encourages harmful behavior or violates project security rules.
• Stay objective in the neutral stance -- Avoid using biased language or leaning towards one side when synthesizing the results.
• Explicitly state assumptions -- Clearly label any unverified facts or assumptions used during the analysis. </guardrails>

<validation> ## Validation Checkpoint

• [ ] At least three distinct perspectives (Advocate, Critic, Neutral) have been applied
• [ ] Core assumptions have been identified and challenged
• [ ] Potential risks and failure modes are explicitly documented
• [ ] Trade-offs between competing approaches are weighed objectively
• [ ] Final recommendation is based on a synthesis of all perspectives, not just one
• [ ] Analysis avoids loaded language and maintains a professional tone </validation>

<example> ## Example: Applying Perspectives to a Tech Choice

Proposal: Moving from a monolithic database to a distributed microservices architecture.

Advocate: "Enables independent scaling of services, improves developer velocity by reducing coupling, and increases fault tolerance through isolation."

Critic: "Significantly increases operational complexity (service discovery, distributed tracing), introduces network latency between services, and requires complex distributed transaction management."

Neutral: "The transition is beneficial if the current monolith is a bottleneck for deployment frequency or horizontal scaling. However, the team must first invest in robust observability and CI/CD pipelines to manage the added overhead." </example>