agentleFS
Sign inStart free
imMamdouhaboammarimMamdouhaboammar/matts-skills-into-chatgpt/skills/wait-what/SKILL.md

wait-what

Skill8 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Re-pitch an explanation or proposal from a simpler angle with reset assumptions and plain English. Use when the previous explanation was confusing, jargon-heavy, or did not land — even if the user just says \"what?\" or \"I don't get it\". Do NOT use for general brainstorming or initial planning.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 49 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    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:

    Simplified Technical English (STE): Use clear, unambiguous sentences.

    line 14
  2. Distinctive:

    Concrete Contrast (Before vs. After): Use simple side-by-side examples or ASCII diagrams to demonstrate the change visually.

    line 17
  3. Very specific:

    Key Point: Check CONTEXT.md to ensure correct domain terms are used without inventing new terms.

    line 40
  4. Distinctive:

    Action: Ask a single targeted question to verify comprehension before moving forward.

    line 54

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 49 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

Wait What

Reset conversational assumptions, strip out convoluted jargon, and re-explain technical proposals using ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English grounded in canonical domain terminology (CONTEXT.md).

Core Invariants

  1. Simplified Technical English (STE): Use clear, unambiguous sentences; restrict vocabulary to concrete, observable concepts without cognitive overload.
  2. Domain Glossary Fidelity: Strictly utilize the canonical nouns established in CONTEXT.md (or CONTEXT-MAP.md); avoid colloquial synonyms.
  3. Reset Ground Assumptions: Step back from complex implementation details and re-anchor the explanation in the core user problem and high-level architecture.
  4. Concrete Contrast (Before vs. After): Use simple side-by-side examples or ASCII diagrams to demonstrate the change visually.
  5. Check for Understanding: Conclude with a single direct question confirming whether the new explanation lands clearly.

Architecture & Map of Content (MOC)

[ Confusing / Jargon-Heavy Explanation ] ──► [ Step Back to Problem Statement ] ──► [ ASD-STE100 Re-Pitch with CONTEXT.md ] ──► [ Single Alignment Check ]
PhaseResponsibilityGuidelines
Context ResetRe-state the immediate goal in 1 sentenceGround in user value
STE ExplanationExplain mechanism with short active verbs1 concept per sentence
Visual/Concrete AnchorShow 3-line input/output or ASCII diffHigh clarity, low noise

Step-by-Step Procedure (TWI)

Step 1: Strip Jargon and Reset Context

  • Action: Acknowledge the ambiguity, discard low-level implementation minutiae, and state the primary objective in plain English.
  • Key Point: Check CONTEXT.md to ensure correct domain terms are used without inventing new terms.
  • Why: Cognitive fatigue occurs when explanations introduce multiple competing mental models simultaneously.

Step 2: Formulate Simplified Explanation

  • Action: Deliver the re-pitch in short, structured bullet points:
    1. What is the current problem?
    2. What is the proposed change?
    3. Why does this solve the problem cleanly?
  • Inline Checklist:
    • Sentences average under 15 words
    • Canonical domain vocabulary used
    • Abstract metaphors replaced with concrete mechanics

Step 3: Align on Core Understanding

  • Action: Ask a single targeted question to verify comprehension before moving forward.
  • Why: Prevents continuing down a misaligned technical path.

Anti-Rationalization Guardrails

Tempting RationalizationBinding RuleEngineering Rationale
"Repeat the previous explanation louder or with more words."Re-pitch from a completely fresh, simpler baseline angle.Repeating the same explanation fails to address the root cognitive confusion.
"Use complex industry analogies and metaphors."Use concrete, direct technical English (STE).Analogies introduce leaky abstractions and hide technical realities.
"Assume the user understood and start modifying files."Confirm alignment with a clean question before acting.Proceeding without mutual clarity leads to rejected work and reverted PRs.

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.

Check your setup, free