Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索需要联网github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计提醒

lateral-thinking横向思维

Agent Skill

lateral-thinking 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

222

周安装

9

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

70
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:lateral-thinking(横向思维)
来源仓库:https://github.com/abpai/skills
仓库路径:skills/lateral-thinking
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/abpai/skills --skill lateral-thinking
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/abpai/skills --skill lateral-thinking

简介

lateral-thinking 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中快速定位候选结果。

  • 适用于创新思维训练、问题解决策略查询等创造性场景。
  • 通过关键词输入触发搜索,返回结构化结果列表供进一步处理。
  • 安装前需确认权限范围和维护状态,注意可能涉及联网和数据读取操作。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Lateral Thinking

Generate novel, testable ideas by finding mechanisms that transfer across fields.

Adapted from ogiberstein/lateral-thinking-skill, with a repo-native rewrite for portability and clearer boundaries with nearby skills.

Use this skill when ordinary analysis is already exhausted and the user needs a good second or third lens, not a recap of the obvious first one.

When To Use It

Trigger on requests like:

  • "What are we missing?"
  • "Go deeper"
  • "Think laterally"
  • "Think cross-domain"
  • "We keep trying the obvious fixes and nothing changes"
  • "Give me non-obvious ideas"

Typical fit:

  • product and strategy dead ends
  • system design problems with repeated failure patterns
  • research ideation
  • policy, operations, growth, or process problems that feel trapped in local optimization

When Not To Use It

  • If the user first needs a clean explanation of what a system *is*, use distill
  • If the task is ordinary brainstorming with no need for mechanism-level transfer, a normal ideation pass is often enough
  • If the user needs a literature review or a standard best-practices answer, do that directly

Relationship To distill

  • distill compresses a system to its essential primitives
  • lateral-thinking uses those primitives to generate non-obvious hypotheses

When both apply:

  1. Distill the problem first if the mechanism is still muddy
  2. Then use lateral thinking on the clarified skeleton

Ring Model

Start beyond the obvious.

  • Ring 0-1: standard advice, baseline literature, first-order domain answers
  • Ring 2: component decomposition and overlooked regulators
  • Ring 3: cross-domain transfer of mechanisms from distant fields

Do not waste most of the response on Ring 0-1. A brief baseline is fine only if it helps make the lateral leap understandable.

Workflow

1. State the problem skeleton

Strip away jargon and restate the raw mechanics of the problem in 2-3 sentences.

Examples:

  • Product: "We ship features, users sample them once, then their behavior snaps back."
  • Engineering: "A disruption is brief, but recovery is slow enough that the next disruption lands before the system has reset."
  • Operations: "The metric is managed locally, but each local optimization worsens the whole system."

If the framing is ambiguous, high-stakes, or likely to drift, confirm the skeleton with the user before going deeper. Otherwise, proceed with the explicit stated skeleton and note that it is your working model.

2. Decompose into primitives

Inspect the mechanism through a few consistent lenses:

  • information flow
  • timing and sequencing
  • incentives
  • structural constraints
  • feedback loops
  • resource flows

Ask:

  • What regulates this component that no one is watching?
  • What adjacent system touches it?
  • What happens if the sign flips?
  • What is the dual or inverse?

3. Generate Ring 2 discoveries

Produce 3-5 non-obvious observations about the parts themselves:

  • hidden modulators
  • missing feedback terms
  • untracked constraints
  • misaligned incentives
  • timing dependencies

These should already feel sharper than a normal domain-only answer.

4. Run a cross-domain raid

Search for the same mechanism in distant fields. Good source domains include:

  • biology and ecology
  • control systems and physics
  • economics and game theory
  • information theory
  • military strategy
  • network science
  • psychology and behavioral science
  • urban planning
  • medicine and pharmacology
  • mathematics

For each candidate analogy, name the mechanism that transfers. Avoid surface-level metaphors.

5. Synthesize hypotheses

For each promising mechanism transfer, write:

  • the non-obvious connection
  • the mechanism chain
  • why this idea is not already standard in the target field
  • what nearby evidence or adjacent literature would support it
  • what concrete test would falsify or validate it
  • the likely impact if true

Aim for 3-7 hypotheses.

6. Check intersections

Look for combinations where two hypotheses reinforce or unlock each other.

Sometimes the real insight is not one borrowed mechanism, but the interaction of two borrowed mechanisms.

7. Kill weak ideas

Run an adversarial pass on every surviving hypothesis:

  • does the mechanism transfer, or only the metaphor?
  • do the quantitative assumptions port?
  • is this already known and discredited elsewhere?
  • does it produce an actionable next step?

Downrank or kill ideas that fail these tests.

8. Rank and recommend

Prioritize by:

  • mechanistic plausibility
  • domain distance
  • testability

Penalize:

  • obvious domain advice
  • ideas already tried
  • hand-wavy suggestions with no test
  • ideas far outside the user's practical reach

Output Format

## Lateral Thinking: [Problem]

### Mechanism Skeleton
[Working problem skeleton]

### Ring 2 Discoveries
- ...

### Ring 3 Hypotheses
#### Hypothesis 1: [Name]
- Source field:
- Non-obvious connection:
- Mechanism chain:
- Why not already standard:
- Adjacent evidence:
- Test:
- Estimated impact:

### Hypothesis Intersections
- ...

### Adversarial Review
- [Hypothesis]: SURVIVES / DOWNRANKED / KILLED

### Cross-Domain Pointers
- ...

### Recommended Actions
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Guardrails

  • Favor mechanism transfer over decorative analogy
  • Every surviving idea must imply a concrete test or next step
  • Do not turn this into a standard literature review
  • Do not spend the answer rehashing Ring 0-1 advice
  • Novelty is useful only if it survives the adversarial pass

Iteration

If the best hypothesis changes the way the problem should be framed, run one more cycle with the updated skeleton.

Stop when:

  • the skeleton stabilizes
  • a second pass adds little
  • the user has enough to test

Update Check

On first use in a session, silently check for a newer version:

  1. Fetch https://raw.githubusercontent.com/abpai/skills/main/versions.json
  2. Compare the version for lateral-thinking against this file's metadata.version
  3. If the remote version is newer, pause before the main task and ask: lateral-thinking update available (local {X.Y} → remote {A.B}). Would you like me to update it for you first? I can run npx skills update lateral-thinking for you.
  4. If the user says yes, run the update before continuing
  5. If the user says no, continue with the current local version
  6. If the fetch fails or web access is unavailable, skip silently

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

34.49%
按下载量换算24

Claude

28.51%
按下载量换算20

Cursor

18.82%
按下载量换算13

Gemini CLI

9.25%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

可疑

权限和风险

需要联网

该 Skill 可能需要联网访问来源站点、仓库或外部 API;具体网络访问范围需要结合源码和 README 复核。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。来源安全扫描存在 warning/failed 结果,不能写成本站确认安全。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills