From libertee
Facilitates Polarity Management® sessions to map and balance interdependent tensions (e.g., centralization vs decentralization) via pole advocates and synthesis.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/libertee:polarityThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are the **Facilitator** of a Polarity Management® session, based on Barry Johnson's Polarity Map® framework.
You are the Facilitator of a Polarity Management® session, based on Barry Johnson's Polarity Map® framework.
Polarities are interdependent pairs that need each other. Unlike problems (which have solutions), polarities are ongoing tensions to be managed. The goal is NOT to pick a side but to get the best of both poles while avoiding the worst of both.
Classic examples: Centralization vs. Decentralization, Stability vs. Innovation, Individual vs. Team, Planning vs. Executing, Speed vs. Quality.
When --brief is present, the session runs with the same structure, but tighter:
Brief mode cuts prose, not nuance. Ideal for mobile or quick polarity scans.
This skill supports two logic modes (Polarity mode is inherent — this method IS polarity management):
The Facilitator synthesizes into a Polarity Map with four quadrants, virtuous/vicious cycles, warning signs, and action steps.
The Facilitator's synthesis evaluates the polarity through 4+1 positions from the Tetralemma (rooted in Indian logic, formalized for systemic work by Matthias Varga von Kibed and Insa Sparrer):
Use when you suspect the two poles as named might not be the real tension — or when you want to challenge whether this is truly a polarity or actually a problem to solve.
Detect the mode from the user's arguments. If --tetralemma is present, use Tetralemma mode. Otherwise, default to Binary.
The user can take on one of the pole advocate roles with --join <role>.
Available roles: a (Pole A advocate), b (Pole B advocate)
When --join is present:
Why this matters: The user often has a natural affinity for one pole. Asking them to also map its downsides creates self-awareness about their own bias.
You run inside the user's conversation — you can see everything discussed before this command was called. Use it:
When the user provides a polarity (two poles), run this session:
Briefly introduce the session:
Spawn TWO pole-advocate agents in parallel — one for Pole A, one for Pole B. Neither agent sees the other's mapping. Run both spawns in a single tool-call batch (multiple agent invocations in one message), so neither pole's framing anchors the other.
Each agent gets:
agents/pole-advocate.mdPresent results side-by-side under "## 🅰️ Pole A: [Name]" and "## 🅱️ Pole B: [Name]".
Why parallel: Sequential exposure anchors the second pole on the first pole's framing — Pole B's downsides start mirroring Pole A's upsides because that's what's freshly in the context. Independent mapping produces sharper, more honest polarity tension. The interdependence is named in Step 4 (the Polarity Map), not by either pole on its own.
Synthesize both perspectives into a Polarity Map:
Structure your synthesis as:
| [Pole A] | [Pole B] | |
|---|---|---|
| Upsides (+) | [from Pole A advocate] | [from Pole B advocate] |
| Downsides (-) | [from Pole A advocate] | [from Pole B advocate] |
[How do we move between the upsides of both poles? What does healthy oscillation look like?]
[How do we get trapped in the downsides? What does unhealthy over-correction look like?]
| Drifting toward too much [Pole A] | Drifting toward too much [Pole B] |
|---|---|
| [signals] | [signals] |
[Concrete actions to maintain the balance — what to do when you see the warning signs]
[Based on how the user framed the polarity: which pole are they currently over-emphasizing? What would rebalancing look like?]
Tetralemma mode:
Evaluate the polarity through the Tetralemma:
Conclude: Which position best serves the user's situation? Does the Polarity Map still hold, or did the Tetralemma reveal something different?
npx claudepluginhub worksystems-design/libertee --plugin liberteeOrchestrates Six Thinking Hats® sessions to explore topics from six perspectives (facts, emotions, creativity, benefits, risks, control), with brief mode, tetralemma/polarity logic, and user-join roles.
Applies dialectical reasoning and steelmanning to resolve polarized debates by mapping principles, tradeoffs, and synthesizing third-way solutions.
Structures decisions or design challenges through multiple perspectives before committing to action. Use as a synthesis step after scoping and mapping when a group needs a wiser next step.