| Excellent examples! The decomposition pattern is key. I've been exploring a related approach where different perspectives operate within the same session, sharing context. The difference: instead of sequential passes, you engage multiple viewpoints simultaneously. They build on each other's insights in real-time.
Try this experiment: Copy this prompt: https://github.com/achamian/think-center-why-maybe/blob/main... Start with: "Weaver, I need to reply to an important email. Here's the context: [email details, recipient biases, objectives]" After Weaver provides narrative strategy, ask: "Council, what are we missing?"
Watch different perspectives emerge - Maker suggests concrete language, Checker spots assumptions, O/G notes psychological dynamics Critical discovery: The tone matters immensely. Treat perspectives as respected colleagues - joke with them, thank them, admit mistakes. This isn't anthropomorphism - it functionally improves outputs. Playful collaboration enables perspectives to expand beyond initial boundaries. What makes this powerful: all perspectives share evolving context while the collaborative tone enables breakthrough insights that rigid commanding never achieves. |
When onboarding a friend, I used this framing: "Treat Waver/Maker/Checker like three intelligent interns on your team." This immediately shifted his mental model from "prompt engineering" to team collaboration. His first reaction revealed everything: "I don't like Checker - keeps raising objections." I explained that's literally Checker's job - like a good QA engineer finding bugs.
The parallel to XP practices became clear:
Waver explores the solution space (like brainstorming) Maker implements concrete solutions (like coding) Checker prevents mistakes (like code review/QA)
What makes this powerful: You're not optimizing prompts, you're managing a collaborative process. When you debate with Checker about which objections matter, Checker learns and adapts. Same context, same "prompt", totally different outcomes based on interaction quality.
When you ask Maker and Weaver to observe your conversation with Checker they notice how feedback is given and received. It is important to create an environment where "Feedback is a judgement free zone"
The resistance points are where breakthroughs happen. If you find yourself annoyed with one perspective, that's usually the signal to engage more deeply with its purpose, not bypass it.
[Related observation on how collaborative tone enables evolution: https://github.com/achamian/think-center-why-maybe/blob/main...]