Explain plainly
Re-explain a technical concept, code path, or review finding you just produced in plain language, for a reader who is not in that domain. Use when the user says it's "charabia"/gibberish, asks you to "explique simplement", "traduis en clair", "je comprends pas", "explain like I'm not a specialist", or otherwise signals the previous explanation was too jargon-dense.From its SKILL.md
npx -y skills add BenjaminG/ai-skills --skill explain-plainlyAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 4 stars4 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
SKILL.md
2.1 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Explain plainly
The previous explanation was opaque because it led with jargon and named the parts before the purpose. Re-explain with three moves, in order. Answer in the user's language.
1. Ground in the why
Open with the business purpose — what problem this serves, in one or two sentences a PM would nod at. No technical term yet.
Then give one worked example with real numbers. Concrete figures (30% / 20% / 50%, a one-third split, a specific date) are the anchor every term below hangs on. Invent plausible numbers if the real ones aren't at hand — say so.
Completion criterion: the reader understands what the thing is for before any identifier or jargon word appears.
2. Map each term to plain meaning
Take every jargon word, identifier, or domain term from the original explanation and give each one row: the term, then its meaning in everyday words, tied back to the worked example. A short table is usually clearest.
Two rules that carry most of the clarity:
- Flag old-vs-new explicitly. If a field/concept is the legacy one kept for compatibility, say so — "this is the OLD field, from before this change." Most confusion is a reader not knowing which era a name belongs to.
- Translate, don't restate. "fractional split → paying in three equal thirds, 33.33% each" lands; "fractional split → a split that is fractional" is a no-op.
Completion criterion: no term from the original explanation is left undefined. Re-scan your own previous message and confirm every piece of jargon has a row.
3. Check and offer the next step
Close by asking if it's clearer, and offer the concrete next action (apply the fix, see the corrections in plain terms, move on). Keep it to one or two lines.