agentleFS
BuddhiliveBuddhilive/buddhi-cli/.agents/skills/eli5/SKILL.md

eli5

Skill1 starsChanged 14 days agoMITView on GitHub

Explain a technical spec or proposed change in plain language: what problem it solves, how the solution works, and every schema change.

66 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use implement-spec-with-codex, audit-decisions and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • dzhngSkill

    implement-spec-with-codex

    Run [implement-spec](../implement-spec/SKILL.md) with Codex doing the implementation passes while you orchestrate, integrate, and review. Use when the user asks to implement a spec with Codex, or to run implement-spec with Codex as the implementer.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • wolverin0Skill

    audit-decisions

    Standardize remediation decisions, baseline-policy entries, and legal-review banners for accepted, deferred, or policy-blocked audit findings.

    Also in 4 projects that use this

  • GeiserXSkill

    docs-loop

    Use when the user asks to audit docs, check documentation for stale claims, or verify docs against the code.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 46 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 5

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use small concrete examples without replacing precise claims with analogies.

    line 26
  2. Distinctive:

    Read the complete referenced artifact and inspect current owners when the spec alone cannot establish behavior.

    line 40
  3. Distinctive:

    Use these headings in order:

    line 55
  4. Distinctive:

    Call out destructive resets, migration requirements, compatibility behavior, eventual consistency, and intentional data loss directly.

    line 69
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not omit a schema change because it is operational rather than user-visible.

    line 71

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 46 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

ELI5

Turn the referenced spec or change into an accurate mental model for a technical reader who does not live in the code. Plain language, full precision: simplify the telling, never the claims.

The Register

Other skills point here when their output must be readable by someone who didn't live the work. The reader is technical — pseudocode and precise claims land fine — but they have read none of the code and none of the session's messages: no diff, no transcript, no labels the work invented along the way. Writing ELI5 means:

  • Walk one concrete scenario end to end — the triggering event, what happens today, what the change (or the unbuilt alternative) would do — instead of describing properties in the abstract.
  • Define every term of art at first use; never lean on labels the spec, code, or session invented.
  • Use small concrete examples without replacing precise claims with analogies.
  • Reach for pseudocode when explaining control flow, ordering, or timing. Prose describing when-something-fires reads as plausible and hides the gap; five lines of pseudocode make the gate visible and let the reader see the case you missed. Write it at the level of the decision, not the implementation — the conditions and their order, not real function signatures. The tell that you needed it: your prose contains "only when", "before", "unless", or "as soon as" and the reader still cannot say what happens on the second call.
  • The test: the text stands alone, without the diff, the spec, or the transcript. If the reader must ask "explain this part", it failed.

Workflow

  1. Read the complete referenced artifact and inspect current owners when the spec alone cannot establish behavior. When no artifact is named, explain the session's current change (working tree or branch diff). Separate what exists today from what is only proposed.
  2. Explain the problem through its user or operational consequence, including why the current design produces it.
  3. Explain the solution as one simple before/after data flow. Introduce each component by responsibility, not by filename or internal symbol.
  4. Inventory schema and durable-contract changes exhaustively: added, changed, removed, reset, and deliberately unchanged. Include cursor or wire-format cutovers when they affect stored data or readers. Say explicitly when there are no schema changes.

Output

Use these headings in order:

  1. Problem
  2. Solution
  3. Schema changes

End with one short sentence stating what users should notice after the change.

Rules

  • Lead with behavior and boundaries; mention implementation names only when they clarify ownership or a contract.
  • Distinguish canonical records from derived indexes, caches, summaries, and presentation grouping.
  • Call out destructive resets, migration requirements, compatibility behavior, eventual consistency, and intentional data loss directly.
  • Do not omit a schema change because it is operational rather than user-visible.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.