dumb-it-down
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Restate a dense, jargon-heavy plan or proposal in plain, decision-focused language with everyday analogies, so a non-expert can understand it and decide. Use when the user says "dumb it down", "explain this simply", "ELI5 this", "I don't get this plan", or pastes something dense and asks what it means or whether to approve it.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jeremymcs/skillstheir own version, first seen May 16, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- jeremymcs/skills★ 8same 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.
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 8
Read the whole thing first, then give me:
- Distinctive: line 21
Use analogies for concepts, plain words for consequences.
- Distinctive: line 22
Don't invent, and don't add confidence the original didn't have.
≈ “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.
Files
Restate this in plain language a smart non-expert can act on. Simplify the wording, never the stakes.
Read the whole thing first, then give me:
- In one sentence: what this is and why, plainly.
- What you're actually deciding: the concrete choices or approvals in front of me. Surface it even if the original only implies it.
- How it works: a few bullets in plain words, with an everyday analogy for any unfamiliar concept.
- Watch out for: risks, costs, and anything irreversible or touching security, data, or money, stated plainly. Never soften or omit these.
- Questions to ask back: 2 to 4 sharp things I could push back on.
Drop any section that genuinely doesn't apply, except "Watch out for" when there's a real risk. Keep the length proportional to the input: three lines in, three lines out.
Rules:
- Translate, don't summarize. Keep load-bearing specifics exact (the real table name, the real consequence); simplify the wrapper around them.
- Use analogies for concepts, plain words for consequences. Never wrap a risk in a cute metaphor: "this can't be undone" should read as "this can't be undone."
- Don't invent, and don't add confidence the original didn't have. If a key detail is missing, say so.
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
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.