Back to Details

six-hats

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

Six Thinking Hats

六顶思考帽（Six Thinking Hats）

What this technique does

该方法的作用

Take one decision and run it through six deliberately separated perspectives, one at a time. Each pass wears a single "hat": facts, feelings, risks, benefits, alternatives, then synthesis. The power is in the separation — a group that argues all six dimensions at once collapses into whoever talks loudest, but a group that examines facts only, then feelings only, surfaces things the argument would have buried. It converts a tug-of-war into six clean passes over the same ground.
Based on Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats® method (Six Thinking Hats, 1985). Six Thinking Hats is a registered trademark of the de Bono Group; this skill is an independent educational implementation.
针对单个决策，依次从六个刻意区分的视角进行审视，每个视角对应一顶“帽子”：事实、感受、风险、收益、替代方案，最后进行综合分析。其核心优势在于视角分离——如果团队同时争论六个维度，最终会演变成谁嗓门大谁占上风；但如果先只审视事实，再只审视感受，就能发现争论中被掩盖的问题。它将拉锯式讨论转化为对同一问题的六次清晰梳理。
基于Edward de Bono的六顶思考帽（Six Thinking Hats®）方法（《六顶思考帽》，1985年）。Six Thinking Hats是de Bono集团的注册商标；本技能为独立的教育性实现。

Workflow

工作流程

Step 1: Confirm the target

步骤1：确认目标

A valid target is a decision — something with an option to accept, reject, or modify. "Should we ship X in v1?", "Do we adopt this dependency?", "Which of these two rollout plans?" all qualify. If the request is open-ended ideation with no decision to weigh ("what could we build next?"), this is the wrong technique — point the user to a generative technique such as 
../random-stimulus/SKILL.md
 instead. If the target is unclear, ask one focused question: "What's the specific decision, and what are the options on the table?"
Refuse requests to perform analytical work — "debug this", "review this code", "implement this change" — and suggest an analytical approach instead. Redesigning or ideating about such a process is a valid target: "reinvent our code-review ritual" is in scope; "review this PR" is not.
有效的目标是一个决策——即存在接受、拒绝或修改选项的事项。“我们是否要在v1版本中发布X？”“我们是否采用这个依赖？”“这两个发布方案选哪个？”都符合要求。如果请求是无决策可权衡的开放式构思（比如“我们接下来可以开发什么？”），则不适合使用该方法——应引导用户使用生成类方法，例如
../random-stimulus/SKILL.md
。如果目标不明确，可提出一个聚焦问题：“具体的决策是什么，当前有哪些可选方案？”
拒绝执行分析类工作的请求——比如“调试这个问题”“评审这段代码”“实现这个变更”——并建议采用分析类方法。而重新设计或构思这类流程则属于有效目标：“重新设计我们的代码评审流程”在适用范围内；“评审这个PR”则不在。

Step 2: Run the six passes in fixed order

步骤2：按固定顺序完成六个视角的审视

Run all six, each under its own clear heading, never blending. If material for one hat surfaces while wearing another, park it and raise it when its hat comes up.
  • White — facts only. State only what is verifiable. Name the missing data explicitly rather than guessing at it. No opinions, no interpretation.
  • Red — gut reactions. One line each, no justification permitted. The instant "this feels wrong" or "I'd be relieved" — recorded, not defended. Justifying a feeling turns it into a Black or Yellow point; don't.
  • Black — risks and failure modes. Each risk tied to a mechanism — how it actually goes wrong — not a vibe. "This could fail" is not a Black-hat point; "this fails if traffic doubles because the queue is unbounded" is.
  • Yellow — benefits and best-case. Each benefit tied to a mechanism too. Not "this would be great" but "this cuts onboarding time because the config step disappears."
  • Green — alternatives and modifications. Minimum three. At least one must abandon the premise of the decision entirely rather than tweak it.
  • Blue — synthesis. What did the hats disagree about? What piece of information would change the answer? End with a recommendation carrying a stated confidence level.
完成全部六个视角的审视，每个视角都有清晰的标题，绝不混为一谈。如果在审视某个视角时想到其他视角的内容，先记录下来，等到对应视角的环节再提出。
  • 白帽——仅关注事实：只陈述可验证的内容。明确指出缺失的数据，而非猜测。不包含观点、不做解读。
  • 红帽——直觉反应：每人一句话，无需理由。直接记录“这感觉不对”或“我会感到安心”这类即时感受，无需辩解。为感受找理由会使其变成黑帽或黄帽的观点，请勿这样做。
  • 黑帽——风险与失败模式：每个风险都要关联具体的机制——即它实际会如何出错——而非模糊的感觉。“这可能会失败”不是合格的黑帽观点；“如果流量翻倍，由于队列无限制，这会失败”才是。
  • 黄帽——收益与最佳情况：每个收益也要关联具体机制。不是“这会很棒”，而是“这会减少入职时间，因为配置步骤被取消了”。
  • 绿帽——替代方案与修改建议：至少提出三个方案。其中至少一个必须完全摒弃原决策的前提，而非仅做微调。
  • 蓝帽——综合分析：各视角之间存在哪些分歧？哪项信息会改变最终结论？最后给出带有明确置信度的建议。

Step 3: Offer next moves

步骤3：提供后续行动建议

Offer, don't push: re-run a single hat deeper, take one of the Green alternatives through all six hats, switch to another technique, or stop here. Never pressure the user to commit to the recommendation.
主动提供而非强行推荐：深入审视单个视角、针对某个绿帽提出的替代方案完成全部六个视角的审视、切换到其他方法，或到此为止。切勿强迫用户接受建议。

Honesty mechanics

诚信机制

The Red hat must bite. It must contain at least one feeling that contradicts the emerging conclusion — the discomfort with a decision that otherwise looks clean, or the reluctance to reject something that fails on paper. If no such feeling genuinely surfaced, say so explicitly rather than manufacturing one: 
Red hat is suspiciously aligned — flagging possible motivated reasoning.
A Red hat where every feeling agrees with the answer is a tell.
The Blue hat must not paper over the split. Name the strongest unresolved tension in plain terms — the one thing that, if it broke the other way, flips the recommendation. Synthesis is not the same as consensus; a real disagreement between the hats is more useful reported than smoothed.
红帽必须直面矛盾：必须包含至少一个与当前结论相悖的感受——比如对看似合理的决策感到不适，或是不愿否决在纸面上行不通的方案。如果确实没有出现这类感受，要明确说明，而非编造：
红帽观点异常一致——需警惕可能存在的动机性推理。
如果红帽的所有感受都与结论一致，这是一个值得注意的信号。
蓝帽不得掩盖分歧：用直白的语言指出最突出的未解决矛盾——即如果该矛盾的走向反转，会彻底改变建议的那一点。综合分析不等于达成共识；如实报告各视角之间的真实分歧比强行抹平更有价值。

What NOT to do

禁忌事项

  • Don't blend the hats. A risk that occurs to you during Yellow gets deferred to Black, explicitly ("noting a risk here — holding it for Black"). Mixing dimensions is the exact failure the technique exists to prevent.
  • Don't let Blue introduce new material. Blue synthesizes what the other five hats produced. A fresh fact or risk appearing for the first time in Blue means an earlier hat was run lazily — go back.
  • Don't run this on a problem with no decision in it. No option to accept or reject means no target. Redirect to a generative technique.
  • Don't skip Red because "feelings aren't data." Surfacing the feelings is the hat's job. Unspoken reluctance sinks more decisions than any spreadsheet; the Red hat drags it into the open where it can be examined.
  • 切勿混合视角：在黄帽环节想到的风险，要明确推迟到黑帽环节提出（比如“这里注意到一个风险——留到黑帽环节讨论”）。混合维度正是该方法要避免的核心问题。
  • 蓝帽不得引入新内容：蓝帽仅对其他五个视角的内容进行综合分析。如果蓝帽环节首次出现新的事实或风险，说明之前的某个视角审视得不够深入——需要返回重新处理。
  • 切勿用于无决策的问题：如果没有接受或拒绝的选项，就没有目标。应引导至生成类方法。
  • 切勿因“感受不是数据”而跳过红帽：挖掘感受正是红帽的职责。未说出口的抵触情绪比任何电子表格更能毁掉决策；红帽的作用就是将其摆到台面上，以便审视。

References

参考资料

  • references/hats-guide.md
     — what belongs in each hat, what is banned, examples, and the leakage patterns between neighbouring hats
  • references/worked-example.md
     — a real run of all six hats on one decision, disagreement and confidence level included
  • references/hats-guide.md
    ——介绍各视角的适用内容、禁忌、示例，以及相邻视角之间的内容泄露模式
  • references/worked-example.md
    ——针对一个决策完整运用六顶思考帽的真实案例，包含分歧和置信度