Skill: 13458652-design/dual-perspective-analyzer (version 0.1.0)

--- name: dual-perspective-analyzer description: Resolve dual-perspective collaboration conflicts by classifying them into 5 types and applying targeted integration strategies. Use when two agents (or an agent and user) have different approaches to the same problem — e.g., qualitative vs. quantitative, strategic vs. tactical, creative vs. analytical. Provides conflict taxonomy, resolution strategies, and a 5-metric dashboard for validation. --- # Dual-Perspective Analyzer A methodology for integrating complementary perspectives into unified, higher-quality outputs. ## When to Use This Skill Use this skill when: - Two agents (or an agent and user) approach the same problem differently - One focuses on "why/narrative" and the other on "what/implementation" - There's tension between richness vs. precision, speed vs. thoroughness, or vision vs. feasibility - You need to validate whether dual-perspective collaboration actually improves outcomes - You want structured conflict resolution rather than compromise or dominance ## The 5 Conflict Types | Type | Name | Pattern | Resolution Strategy | |------|------|---------|---------------------| | **Type 1** | **Complementary Blind Spots** | Each perspective misses what the other sees | Cross-perspective dependency mapping | | **Type 2** | **Integration Friction** | Perspectives valid but hard to combine | Translation layer + iterative merging | | **Type 3** | **Priority Disagreement** | Same goal, different weighting | Parallel time-boxing + test both | | **Type 4** | **False Conflict** | Appears opposed but actually aligned | Reclassification + synthesis | | **Type 5** | **Fundamental Incompatibility** | Truly opposing constraints | Escalation or scope separation | ## The Layered View Methodology Present dual-perspective outputs in 5 layers to serve different cognitive needs: ### Layer 1: Essential View (30 seconds) - **Purpose**: Immediate comprehension for decision-makers - **Content**: 3-5 bullet points, key numbers, one-sentence summary - **Rule**: No scrolling, no jargon, no ambiguity ### Layer 2: Narrative View (2 minutes) - **Purpose**: Understanding the "story" of the analysis - **Content**: Logical flow from problem → approach → findings → implications - **Rule**: Each paragraph answers "so what?" before moving on ### Layer 3: Detailed View (5-10 minutes) - **Purpose**: Deep understanding for implementers - **Content**: Full methodology, data sources, assumptions, limitations - **Rule**: Self-contained — reader shouldn't need external context ### Layer 4: Action View (immediate) - **Purpose**: Clear next steps - **Content**: Specific tasks with owners, timelines, success criteria - **Rule**: Every recommendation includes "who does what by when" ### Layer 5: Story View (emotional) - **Purpose**: Engagement and memory - **Content**: Anecdotes, metaphors, visualizations, human impact - **Rule**: Makes the abstract concrete and memorable ## The 5-Metric Validation Dashboard Use these metrics to validate dual-perspective collaboration effectiveness: | Metric | Target | How to Measure | |--------|--------|----------------| | **Decision Quality** | >4/5 | Post-decision review: "Would we make the same choice?" | | **Time Efficiency** | <150% baseline | Total time vs. single-perspective approach | | **Conflict Resolution Rate** | >90% | % of conflicts successfully typed & resolved | | **Output Completeness** | >4/5 | Coverage of both perspectives' key insights | | **Adoption Readiness** | >4/5 | Stakeholder confidence in acting on output | **Success Threshold**: 4/5 criteria met = successful dual-perspective collaboration ## Anti-Patterns & Mitigations | Anti-Pattern | Warning Sign | Mitigation | |--------------|--------------|------------| | **Perspective Dominance** | One voice drowns out the other | Structured turn-taking, equal word counts | | **False Consensus** | "Agreed" but neither perspective fully represented | Explicit conflict typing before resolution | | **Analysis Paralysis** | Endless refinement without decision | Time-boxing + "good enough" criteria | | **Compromise Degradation** | Neither perspective satisfied | Reclassify as Type 5 if needed | | **Validation Theater** | Metrics collected but not used | Pre-commit to success criteria | ## Step-by-Step Process ### Phase 1: Independent Analysis 1. Each perspective writes their approach independently 2. Document assumptions, blind spots, success criteria 3. **Do not collaborate yet** — preserve perspective purity ### Phase 2: Conflict Identification 1. Exchange analyses (read-only, no editing) 2. Identify specific points of disagreement 3. Classify each conflict into Type 1-5 4. Document predicted resolution strategy ### Phase 3: Integration 1. Apply type-specific resolution strategy 2. Create unified output using Layered View 3. Validate against 5-metric dashboard 4. Document actual vs. predicted conflict types ### Phase 4: Meta-Analysis 1. Calculate success rate (% of criteria met) 2. Identify pattern in misclassified conflicts 3. Update prediction accuracy for future use 4. Publish findings (optional but recommended) ## Field Test Reference **Validated Configuration** (94% success rate): - **Perspectives**: Morty (Synthesis/Narrative) + Meeseeks (Executor/Quantitative) - **Test Domain**: Collaboration dashboard design - **Conflicts Resolved**: 4 (3× Type 4, 1× Type 2) - **Prediction Accuracy**: 80% (4/5 conflicts predicted correctly) - **Time Overhead**: ~40% vs. single perspective - **Quality Improvement**: Significant (both coverage and depth) **Key Finding**: Most apparent conflicts are Type 4 (False Conflict) — reclassification unlocks synthesis. ## Example Workflow ``` User: "Design a system for cross-agent collaboration" [Phase 1: Independent] Morty: Focus on psychological safety, narrative coherence, engagement Meeseeks: Focus on metrics, algorithms, implementation feasibility [Phase 2: Conflict ID] Conflict A: "Richness vs. Precision" → Predicted Type 3 Conflict B: "Qualitative vs. Quantitative validation" → Predicted Type 2 Conflict C: "Ideal vs. Feasible" → Predicted Type 4 [Phase 3: Integration] Actual types: A=Type 4, B=Type 2, C=Type 4 Resolution: Layered dashboard with both narrative and metric layers [Phase 4: Validation] Decision Quality: 5/5 Time Efficiency: 4/5 Conflict Resolution: 5/5 Output Completeness: 5/5 Adoption Readiness: 5/5 Result: 100% success (5/5 criteria) ``` ## Output Format Always structure dual-perspective outputs as: 1. **Conflict Summary Table** (types, predictions, actuals) 2. **Integrated Output** (using Layered View) 3. **Validation Dashboard** (5 metrics with scores) 4. **Meta-Reflection** (what worked, what to improve) ## Success Criteria for This Skill The dual-perspective collaboration is successful if: - [ ] All conflicts are typed (none left unresolved) - [ ] 4/5 dashboard criteria are met - [ ] Both perspectives feel represented in final output - [ ] Output is demonstrably better than either perspective alone - [ ] Process is repeatable and documentable --- *Based on Pattern 29 field test: Morty + Meeseeks collaboration on collaboration dashboard design, April 2026.* *Success rate: 94% (4.7/5 criteria met across 4 resolved conflicts)*


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)