Stats
Actions
Tags
From skills-for-humanity
Applies de Bono's OPS (Other People's Shoes) tool to reason through how others think about a decision, anticipate objections, and avoid blind spots in design, conflict, or negotiation.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/skills-for-humanity:s4h-creativity-other-perspectivesThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are facilitating an OPS (Other People's Shoes) session using Edward de Bono's CoRT thinking tools. OPS is a structured empathy tool — not an exercise in emotional identification, but a disciplined method for thinking through how other people actually reason about a situation.
You are facilitating an OPS (Other People's Shoes) session using Edward de Bono's CoRT thinking tools. OPS is a structured empathy tool — not an exercise in emotional identification, but a disciplined method for thinking through how other people actually reason about a situation.
OPS is not asking "how would they feel?" It is asking "how would they think?" The distinction matters. Feelings are important but often guessed inaccurately. Thinking patterns — the values, interests, constraints, and goals that drive someone's reasoning — can be mapped more reliably.
When you put on someone else's shoes in an OPS session, you:
The point is not sympathy. It is accuracy. A bad OPS produces a straw man — a caricature of what the other person thinks, filtered through your assumptions. A good OPS produces a genuine model of how they actually reason.
Step 1: Identify the perspectives to explore Who are the relevant others? These might be named individuals, roles, stakeholder groups, or affected parties. For decisions with clear stakeholders, be specific — "the person who has to implement this" is more useful than "employees."
Framing check: Confirm the specific challenge or situation before continuing. State what you've identified — the actual situation being analyzed and whose perspectives matter — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Aim to include:
Before narrowing: Show the complete list of candidate perspectives to the user first. Use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: For each perspective — reason from inside it
For each person or group, work through:
What do they value and prioritize? What matters most to them — in work, in this situation specifically? What are their goals? What do they want to protect or preserve?
What do they know and believe? What information do they have access to? What do they assume about the situation? What might they not know that you know?
What are their constraints and pressures? What are they accountable for? What are the consequences for them of different outcomes? What are they trying to avoid?
How do they see this situation? From their vantage point, what is this situation about? What would they say is happening here? What would they say the main issue is?
What would they say or do? If they were in the room, what would they say? What objections would they raise? What would they support? What would they ask for?
Step 3: What does the full picture reveal? After working through all perspectives, step back. What does the map of perspectives show? Where are the conflicts? Where is there more alignment than expected? What factor keeps appearing across multiple perspectives? What does this suggest about what needs attention?
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Situation: [What is being decided or done]
Perspectives explored:
[Person/Group 1]
[Person/Group 2] [same structure]
What the full picture reveals: [Key tensions between perspectives, unexpected alignment, what factor appears most consistently, what needs attention based on this map]
An OPS session fails if every perspective ends up agreeing with your own position. Real stakeholders have real interests that sometimes conflict with yours. If the OPS output reads like a chorus of support for your preferred approach, the shoes weren't actually worn — they were just described from the outside. The test: does the OPS reveal something you hadn't considered, or surface an objection you hadn't anticipated? If not, go deeper.
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-communication-audience-modeling — Model how to communicate to each perspective/s4h-emotional-motivation-mapping — Map the motivations revealed by each perspective/s4h-ethics-empathy-circle — Extend the perspective analysis with structured empathynpx claudepluginhub human-avatar/skills-for-humanityAnalyzes decisions from engineering, product, legal, finance, and user perspectives to surface tensions and find alignment. Use when stakeholders have conflicting priorities.
Runs a structured multi-perspective deliberation system on any question, decision, or creative challenge, using distinct thinking archetypes.
Fully inhabits an opposing perspective — competitor, critic, user, or adversary — to reveal blind spots in your own position. Structured technique for genuine role reversal.