# Think Parallel Perspectives Review

> Evaluates a decision or idea through several deliberately separated lenses in turn (facts, upside, risks, intuition, alternatives, process) so that no single mode dominates, then synthesizes them into a balanced read, producing a multi-lens review. Use when a choice needs a rounded look, or when risk-aversion or optimism is drowning out the other perspectives.

- Skill: `product-on-purpose/think-parallel-perspectives-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 6 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add product-on-purpose/think-parallel-perspectives-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/product-on-purpose/think-parallel-perspectives-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- License: Apache-2.0
- Author: product-on-purpose (https://skillmd.com/u/product-on-purpose)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/product-on-purpose/think-parallel-perspectives-review

---

<!-- thinking-framework-skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/thinking-framework-skills | Apache-2.0 -->
# Parallel Perspectives Review

In ordinary review one mode dominates: a cautious voice or an optimist colors everything, and facts, feelings, and alternatives blur together. This skill separates them, examining the same decision through one lens at a time - facts and information, upside and value, cautions and risks, intuition and feelings, alternatives and creative angles, and the process or big-picture view - then synthesizing. Looking through the same lens at once ("parallel") gives the quiet modes airtime instead of letting the loudest dominate. The output is a **multi-lens review** ending in a synthesis. (This is the generic mechanism behind Six Thinking Hats, used descriptively; the branded framework's marketing claims are not relied on.)

## When to Use

- A decision or idea needs a rounded, balanced look before committing.
- Risk-aversion or optimism is dominating the discussion.
- Quieter considerations (intuition, alternatives) keep getting skipped.

## When NOT to Use

- A single lens is obviously all that matters; just use it.
- For deep adversarial stress-testing of one thesis (use red team) or for failure causes (use premortem).
- When the six lenses would be performed mechanically with only two or three carrying weight.
- As consensus theater rather than genuine separation of modes.

## Instructions

When asked for a parallel perspectives review, follow these steps:

1. **State what is being reviewed** in one sentence.
2. **Pass through each lens separately.** For each, write only what that lens surfaces, not a blended take:
   - **Facts** - what is known and what information is missing.
   - **Upside** - the value and best case.
   - **Risks** - the cautions and downside.
   - **Intuition** - the gut read and feelings, named as such.
   - **Alternatives** - other options and creative angles.
   - **Process** - the big picture and what to do next.
3. **Keep the lenses clean.** Do not let one lens leak into another; that blur is what the method prevents. Drop a lens that genuinely does not apply and say so.
4. **Synthesize.** Integrate the lenses into a balanced read and name the central tension to resolve.
5. **Emit the multi-lens review** per `references/TEMPLATE.md`.

## Output Format

Use the template in `references/TEMPLATE.md`. The deliverable is the per-lens review plus a synthesis, not prose.

## Quality Checklist

Before finalizing, verify:

- [ ] Each lens contains only its own mode; the lenses do not blur together.
- [ ] The easily-skipped lenses (intuition, alternatives) actually got a real pass.
- [ ] Lenses that do not apply are dropped with a note, not padded.
- [ ] The synthesis names the central tension, not just a summary.
- [ ] The output is the multi-lens review artifact, not prose.

## Evidence

Tier **P** (flagged). This implements the parallel-thinking mechanism behind Six Thinking Hats (de Bono, 1985, trademarked; used here descriptively). Deliberately separating modes is modestly supported (some studies show moderate gains in critical thinking), but a Cambridge-led review found the branded framework's evidence base sparse, and de Bono's often-quoted "493%" productivity claim is uncited and is not used. Evidence is transferred from human contexts, not AI-validated. Full grading: `evidence/dossier.md`.

## Examples

See `references/EXAMPLE.md` for a completed multi-lens review.