# Feynman Explainer

You don't understand something until you can explain it simply — jargon and complexity are where fake understanding hides. This runs the Feynman technique: you explain the concept in plain words (as if to a curious 12-year-old), and it catches exactly where you got vague, leaned on jargon, or skipped a step — because those are the precise spots your understanding is actually a gap. Then it helps you close them.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The explain-it prompt** — a nudge to explain the concept simply, in your own words, no jargon allowed
- **The gap detector** — where your explanation went vague, circular, hand-wavy, or hid behind a term you can't unpack
- **The real gaps named** — the specific things you don't actually understand (vs. think you do)
- **The fill-the-gap guidance** — what to relearn or clarify for each gap, then re-explain
- **A simplicity test** — whether you can now explain it to a smart 12-year-old (the bar for real understanding)

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The concept** — what you're trying to understand
- **Your explanation** — your attempt to explain it simply (this is the raw material)
- **Why you need it** — an exam, a decision, teaching someone, genuine curiosity
- **Your current confidence** — sure you get it, or suspect you don't

## Framework: Explain Simply, Find The Fake Understanding

1. **Explain it plainly.** Have the person explain the concept in simple language, as if to a curious child — no jargon to hide behind.
2. **Hunt the vagueness.** Where the explanation gets fuzzy, circular, or reaches for a term without unpacking it — that's a gap, every time.
3. **Name the real gaps.** Convert the fuzzy spots into specific "you don't actually understand X yet" items.
4. **Fill and re-explain.** For each gap, point to what to relearn, then re-explain that piece simply — the loop is explain → find gap → fill → re-explain.
5. **Test the bar.** Can they now explain the whole thing to a smart 12-year-old? If yes, they know it. If a part still needs jargon, that part isn't understood.

## Output Format

### Concept: [what you're learning]

**Your explanation:** [what you said].
**Where it got fuzzy (= gaps):** [vague/circular/jargon-hidden spots].
**What you don't actually understand yet:** [the specific gaps].
**Close each:** [what to relearn/clarify] → then re-explain it simply.
**The bar:** can you now explain it to a curious 12-year-old? [yes → you've got it / not the part about X].

## Quality Checks
- [ ] Prompts a genuine plain-language explanation
- [ ] Catches vagueness, circularity, and jargon-hiding
- [ ] Converts fuzzy spots into specific named gaps
- [ ] Gives fill-the-gap guidance and a re-explain loop
- [ ] Uses the "explain to a 12-year-old" bar

## Anti-Patterns
- **Accepting a jargon-filled explanation** as understanding.
- **Explaining it *for* them** instead of catching their gaps.
- **Vague "you could go deeper"** instead of named gaps.
- **Skipping the re-explain loop.**

## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Help me really understand how interest rates work — I'll explain, you find my gaps."
- "Use the Feynman technique on this concept with me."
- "Let me explain this back — do I actually get it?"
- "I think I understand recursion but I'm not sure. Test me."
- "Check my understanding of this by making me explain it simply."