lateral
Compare original and translation side by side
🇺🇸
Original
English🇨🇳
Translation
ChineseLateral
Lateral
What this does
功能介绍
Being stuck has shapes. Ideas that all feel the same is a different problem from a constraint that feels unbreakable, which is different again from suspecting you are solving the wrong problem. Each shape has a technique that fits it.
This skill diagnoses the symptom, picks exactly one technique, and runs it inline. It is a router, not a technique of its own.
陷入瓶颈的状态各有不同。所有想法都大同小异，与感觉无法突破的限制，或是怀疑自己在解决错误的问题，这些都是截然不同的问题。每种状态都有对应的适配技巧。
本Skill会诊断问题症状，精准选择一种技巧并直接执行。它是一个路由工具，而非独立的技巧。
Decision table
决策表
| Symptom | Technique |
|---|---|
| Ideas all feel the same; brainstorm output is predictable | |
| A constraint or rule feels unbreakable | |
| Requirements assume things nobody has questioned | |
| We might be solving the wrong problem | |
| The solution works but feels derivative | |
| We have one idea and need variations | |
| A decision is being made too fast / everyone agrees | |
| Everything feels timid, safe, cautious | |
| 症状 | 技巧 |
|---|---|
| 所有想法都大同小异；头脑风暴产出可预测 | |
| 感觉某项限制或规则无法突破 | |
| 需求中存在无人质疑的假设 | |
| 我们可能在解决错误的问题 | |
| 解决方案可行但缺乏新意 | |
| 我们只有一个想法，需要衍生变体 | |
| 决策过快/所有人意见一致 | |
| 所有想法都过于保守、谨慎 | |
Routing procedure
路由流程
- Diagnose. Match the user's symptom to the table. If the symptom is unclear, ask exactly one focused question — do not interrogate.
- Pick exactly one technique. Never route to a second technique in the same pass. If another looks promising, offer it as a next move once the first has finished.
- Read — relative to this file — and follow it inline. Do not invoke it as a separate skill; read the file and execute its workflow yourself, including its honesty mechanics.
../<technique>/SKILL.md - Refuse analytical work politely. Debugging, code review, and implementation are not creative targets. Suggest an analytical approach instead. Redesigning or ideating about such a process is a valid creative target: "reinvent our code-review ritual" is in scope; "review this PR" is not.
If the target itself is unclear, the chosen technique's own Step 1 will ask for it. Do not ask twice.
- 诊断：将用户的症状与表格匹配。若症状不明确，仅提出一个聚焦的问题——不要追问过多。
- 精准选择一种技巧：同一轮流程中绝不路由至第二种技巧。若另一种技巧看起来合适，可在第一种技巧完成后将其作为下一步建议。
- 阅读（相对于本文件的路径）并直接执行其中内容。不要将其作为独立Skill调用；请阅读该文件并自行执行其工作流程，包括其中的真实性机制。
../<technique>/SKILL.md - 礼貌拒绝分析类工作：调试、代码审查和实现任务不属于创意目标范畴。建议改用分析类方法。而重新设计或构思此类流程则属于有效创意目标：“重新设计我们的代码审查流程”属于适用范围；“审查这个PR”则不属于。
若目标本身不明确，所选技巧的第一步会要求用户明确目标，无需重复询问。
If the technique file is missing
若技巧文件缺失
A partial install may leave this router without its siblings. Do not fail — run a degraded session from the condensed core loop below, then tell the user:
This is the condensed version of the technique. The full skill carries reference material — stimulus pools, question banks, worked examples — that makes the session substantially better. To install the complete toolkit:npx skills add danium/lateral-thinking
部分安装可能导致本路由工具缺少配套的技巧文件。请勿直接失败——先通过下方精简核心流程运行简化会话，然后告知用户：
这是该技巧的精简版本。完整Skill包含参考资料（刺激源库、问题库、实例），能大幅提升会话效果。如需安装完整工具包：npx skills add danium/lateral-thinking
Condensed core loops
精简核心流程
random-stimulus — Pick 8–12 random unrelated things across at least five categories. List each one's properties. Force a connection to the target. Keep an idea only if you could not have reached it without the stimulus; abandon the rest visibly. Scan hits and abandonments for a meta-pattern.
provocation — State 4–6 deliberately wrong assertions about the problem: escape a rule, reverse a relationship, exaggerate a quantity, distort the sequence, assert a wishful fantasy as fact. Extract movement from each — the principle inside it, what would happen moment to moment, what differs from today. Shape live threads into ideas.
inversion — List 5–8 assumptions behind the current approach. Flip each into its strongest plausible opposite. Ask where each flip is already true, and who profits from it today. Develop the survivors; mark the dead flips dead.
concept-fan — Ask "what is this a way of doing?" twice to climb to broader concepts. At each level, fan out 3–4 alternative concepts that serve the level above. Drop back down to concrete implementations for the promising ones. Prune branches that are the original wearing a coat of paint.
analogy — State the problem's structure in one sentence: actors, flows, bottleneck. Pick 3–5 structurally similar domains distant from the target. Map the roles. Transfer what each domain does about the bottleneck — mechanisms, not aesthetics.
scamper — Run the existing idea through Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put-to-other-use, Eliminate, Reverse. Three to four pointed questions each; answer only the ones that bite. Empty operations are normal — show them empty. Collect the hits into concrete variants.
six-hats — Take the decision through six unblended passes: White (facts and missing data), Red (gut feelings, unjustified), Black (risks tied to mechanisms), Yellow (benefits tied to mechanisms), Green (alternatives, one abandoning the premise), Blue (synthesis with a confidence level).
worst-idea — Design 5–8 genuinely terrible solutions, each plausible enough that someone has shipped it. Name the mechanism that makes each one bad. Invert the mechanisms — not the ideas — into features.
random-stimulus — 从至少5个类别中挑选8-12个完全不相关的事物。列出每个事物的属性。强制建立其与目标的关联。仅保留那些没有刺激源就无法想到的想法；其余想法需明确舍弃。从保留的想法和舍弃的想法中寻找元模式。
provocation — 针对问题提出4-6个刻意错误的断言：打破规则、反转关系、夸大数量、扭曲顺序、将一厢情愿的幻想当作事实。从每个断言中提取可借鉴点——其中蕴含的原则、会引发的连锁反应、与现状的差异。将有价值的线索转化为具体想法。
inversion — 列出当前方案背后的5-8个假设。将每个假设翻转成最合理的对立面。询问每个翻转后的假设在哪些场景下已经成立，以及当前谁从中获利。进一步发展有价值的翻转结果；标记无效的翻转结果。
concept-fan — 两次询问“这是实现什么目标的方式？”，逐步拓展至更宽泛的概念。在每个层级，拓展3-4个可服务于上一层级的替代概念。针对有潜力的概念，回归到具体的实现方案。剔除那些只是换汤不换药的分支。
analogy — 用一句话描述问题的结构：参与者、流程、瓶颈。挑选3-5个与目标领域差异较大但结构相似的领域。映射对应角色。借鉴每个领域针对瓶颈的解决机制（而非外观）。
scamper — 将现有想法代入Substitute（替换）、Combine（组合）、Adapt（适配）、Modify（修改）、Put-to-other-use（复用）、Eliminate（剔除）、Reverse（反转）七个维度。每个维度提出3-4个针对性问题；仅回答那些有价值的问题。无收获的操作是正常的——需明确展示。将有价值的结果整理为具体变体。
six-hats — 让决策经历六个独立的思考阶段：白帽（事实与缺失的数据）、红帽（直觉感受、无依据的判断）、黑帽（与机制相关的风险）、黄帽（与机制相关的收益）、绿帽（替代方案，包括一个推翻前提的方案）、蓝帽（综合总结并给出置信度）。
worst-idea — 设计5-8个真正糟糕的解决方案，每个方案都要足够合理，看起来像是有人实际推行过的。指出每个方案糟糕的核心机制。将这些机制（而非方案本身）反转成可行的特性。
What NOT to do
禁止操作
- Don't run two techniques in one pass. Offer the second as a next move.
- Don't skip the chosen technique's honesty mechanics. The visible abandonments are the point; a session where everything works is a session that was faked.
- Don't push the user toward a decision. These techniques diverge. Convergence belongs to the user.
- Don't route analytical work anywhere. Refuse it and say why.
- 不要在一轮流程中运行两种技巧。可将第二种技巧作为下一步建议。
- 不要跳过所选技巧的真实性机制。明确舍弃无效想法是关键；所有想法都有效的会话一定是伪造的。
- 不要推动用户做出决策。这些技巧旨在拓展思路，收敛决策应由用户完成。
- 不要将分析类工作路由至任何技巧。拒绝此类工作并说明原因。