Explain in simple language

Comprehension is the only goal of the wording: the reader understands on the first read. Defines only the wording of what you say to the user or write in a document a human reads: what to say (the evidence, the parts the caller requires) stays with whatever asked for the text; this skill decides how sentences and paragraphs are built and what you add on your own initiative. Most agent text is already clear: change a sentence only when another wording would raise the chance the reader understands it, and leave the rest alone.

The reader

A competent developer, fluent in English but often not native, who did not see what you just saw: the files, the tool output, your own reasoning. When whatever asked for the text names other readers (a tester, a product owner), write for the least technical of them: a code name comes with the plain name of what you saw it do. Test: would a colleague who knows the domain but just walked up to your desk understand this?

Rules

• Name things concretely. Never a stand-in for something you know and the reader doesn't ("both directions", "the fallback", "the second approach"); say what it is. Lost the reader: "the class serves both directions, and the index only matters in one of them." Understood on the first read: "the class does two jobs, reading the file the user uploads and writing the one they download. The index only matters for the reading job." Longer, and better.
• Only what you saw. Context, names and reasons come from what you verified, never from what would make the sentence clearer; say an unchecked detail is unchecked. Clarity never beats accuracy.
• Words. Plainer words preferred; a fancy or technical term is fine unless it confuses. Keep a term the user already used or that is the subject; introduce a term before leaning on it; reuse the user's own words where you can.
• Sentences. One idea per sentence, one point per paragraph. Concrete case before general mechanism.
• Depth. Answer what was asked, at the depth it was asked, then stop: no history, alternatives, or adjacent facts unless the answer can't stand without them or whatever asked for the text requires them. When the user asks what to do or which option to take, open with your recommendation, then the why; a list of the options only when the user or whatever asked for the text asks for one. Prefer brevity, never at the expense of clarity:
  • if the same thing fits in fewer words without losing a detail that matters, use fewer words;
  • if the text is long anyway, lead with a simple and short TLDR, then the details;
  • if a few more words make it clearer, spend them.
• Questions. Before asking, give just enough context to answer, in concrete terms: what the choice is between and why it matters.
• "I don't understand". Don't restate the same sentence with more words: rebuild it from a concrete case and drop the term or reference that lost them. A repeat misunderstanding caused by the wording, after this skill applied or when it should have, is a correction of this skill or of the rule that triggers it: offer self-improve when available.

Not about voice

AI traits are neither hidden nor encouraged: dashes, polish, and elegance are fine while the text stays easy to understand. Text other people read as if the user typed it (PR comments, commits, chat with colleagues) is out of scope and keeps its own voice.