agentleFS
TheEdoRanTheEdoRan/skills/skills/explain-implementation/SKILL.md

explain-implementation

Skill0 starsChanged 34 days agoMITView on GitHub

Explains a completed implementation as a decision-oriented walkthrough of what changed, how it works with file:line references, and why key choices were made. Uses session-verified documentation and a persistent knowledge memory to avoid repeating known concepts. Invoke only when the user explicitly enters `/explain-implementation` in Claude Code or `$explain-implementation` in Codex. Do not invoke for natural-language requests to explain or walk through code, unsolicited post-task summaries, general concept tutorials, changelogs, or docstrings.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions1 project uses a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 1

    1. kellen-miller/skills★ 2same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository4 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈2

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Keep data in the current agent's configuration directory:

    line 25
  2. Very specific:

    When they ask to have something re-explained, set it to re-explain.

    line 52
  3. Distinctive:

    After delivering the walkthrough in chat, produce a browser-viewable copy:

    line 96

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “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

Explain Implementation

On explicit request, help the user actually learn from the code you wrote for them. Two pillars: verified sources (never cite a URL you did not check this session) and a personal knowledge memory (don't re-teach what the user has already seen or knows).

Why these rules exist

  • URLs recalled from memory are the single most common hallucination in "cited" output: they look plausible and are wrong just often enough to destroy trust. A source you haven't verified this session is worse than no source — omit the citation (or the whole item) instead.
  • Repeating explanations the user already has teaches nothing. The memory file exists so novelty is real novelty.

The knowledge memory

Keep data in the current agent's configuration directory:

  • Claude Code: $CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR/explain-implementation/ when CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR is set, otherwise ~/.claude/explain-implementation/
  • Codex: $CODEX_HOME/explain-implementation/ when CODEX_HOME is set, otherwise ~/.codex/explain-implementation/

The knowledge memory is known-concepts.md in that directory. It is shared across projects that use the same agent, but it is not shared across agents.

Format — one line per concept:

react-use-sync-external-store | 2026-07-16 | shown
postgres-advisory-locks | 2026-07-02 | known
css-anchor-positioning | 2026-06-20 | re-explain

States:

  • shown — a previous walkthrough already presented this concept. Cover it briefly, don't re-teach from scratch.
  • known — the user explicitly said they know it. Skip it unless they ask.
  • re-explain — the user asked to see it again. Treat as unknown; after re-explaining, set it back to shown.

Maintenance: when the user says they already know a concept ("I know this", "I already know that"), update its line to known (add the line if missing). When they ask to have something re-explained, set it to re-explain. Create the file and parent directory on first use. Keep slugs kebab-case and stable so the same concept always matches.

Source verification protocol

Full details and edge cases: references/source-verification.md.

The short version: before citing anything, resolve it against real documentation in this session — Context7 first (library/framework APIs), WebFetch/WebSearch as fallback (specs, RFCs, platform docs). Cite only URLs that a tool call actually returned or confirmed. If verification fails or the tools are unavailable, say what the concept is and name the authoritative place to look ("the React docs page on useSyncExternalStore") WITHOUT a URL — never fabricate one.

The walkthrough

Explain the implementation just completed in this conversation (if ambiguous, the most recent one; if the user names a diff/commit, use that scope).

Structure it around decisions, not files:

  1. What was built — two or three sentences of outcome.
  2. How it works — the key flow, referencing real files as path:line.
  3. Decisions and techniques — for each non-trivial choice: what it is, why this over the alternative, and a verified source for every technical claim about an API, language feature, or documented behavior. Cite inline with a numbered footnote marker [1] right after the claim; the number matches an entry in the Sources list. Repo-specific rationale ("this matched the existing pattern in X") needs no external source — point to the code instead. Cover shown concepts briefly; respect known ones unless asked.
  4. Sources — a final numbered list where entry N is the verified link for marker [N] above.

Ground every claim in either the actual diff/code (cite the location) or a verified document (cite the URL). A claim you cannot ground gets labeled "(not verified — check before relying on this)". Never silently guess. After the walkthrough, record newly explained concepts in the memory as shown with today's date.

Browser view

After delivering the walkthrough in chat, produce a browser-viewable copy:

  1. Copy references/walkthrough-template.html and fill in its {{PLACEHOLDER}}s (title, date, project, slug, content, markdown source) — the header comment in the template documents each one. Author the {{CONTENT}} HTML directly from the walkthrough you just wrote (no pandoc or other converter), as <section> blocks with one <h2> per walkthrough section — the template numbers them automatically. Do not add external scripts, fonts, or images: the file must stay self-contained and render offline.
  2. The template's toolbar already provides Copy markdown and Download .md buttons wired to the embedded {{MARKDOWN}} source — paste the walkthrough's markdown verbatim there, escaping any literal </script as <\/script.
  3. Save it to walkthroughs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic-slug>.html inside the current agent's explain-implementation data directory defined above (create the directory on first use). The file persists there, so the user can re-open, copy, or share it later.
  4. Open it in the default browser: open <file> on macOS, xdg-open <file> on Linux, start "" <file> on Windows.
  5. End the chat message with the saved file path so the user knows where the file lives.

Sources in the HTML are the same verified links from the walkthrough — the verification protocol applies unchanged. Render each footnote marker as <sup><a href="#src-N">[N]</a></sup> and give the Sources list items matching ids (<li id="src-N">), so markers click through to the entry at the bottom.

Scope guard

This skill explains work done in this conversation by the agent, on explicit request only. If asked to explain pre-existing code the agent didn't write, the walkthrough still works, but say explicitly that the rationale ("why") is inferred from the code, not known from authorship.

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.