Claude Skill

explain

Explain content or any concept inside it at the depth the user needs — ELI5, practitioner level, or expert deep-dive — with a jargon glossary and context the original assumes. Use when the user says "explain this", "what does X mean here", "break this down", "I don't understand t

LLM Mart · 0 points · 0 views 4 listing impressions 0 install-command copies
Virus-scanned Reviewed automatically before listing.

Full trust report

Download serhiikorniienko-bullshit-detector-skills_analysis_explain-1a5955e.zip · 1 KB
Part of serhiikorniienko/bullshit-detector — 5 skills

Install

skills CLI npx skills add https://github.com/SerhiiKorniienko/bullshit-detector/tree/main/skills/analysis/explain
Claude Code claude plugin marketplace add https://llmmart.ai/marketplace.json && claude plugin install serhiikorniienko-bullshit-detector@llmmart
Git git clone https://github.com/SerhiiKorniienko/bullshit-detector.git

The skills CLI installs just this skill, for any of its supported agents. Claude Code installs the whole serhiikorniienko/bullshit-detector collection as a plugin from our marketplace. Git is the plain clone.

Skill manifest

explain

Make the content understandable without dumbing it down dishonestly.

Workflow

  1. Get the text (via fetch-content skill script if it's a URL, else web fetch or paste).
  2. Pick the depth — from the user's request, or ask one short question if genuinely unclear:
    • ELI5 — analogies, zero jargon, the core mechanism only
    • Practitioner — assumes general technical literacy, focuses on how it works and what to do with it
    • Deep dive — mechanisms, edge cases, history, competing views
  3. Explain, structured as:
    • The one-sentence version first
    • The mechanism: how it actually works, step by step
    • Glossary: every jargon term the content uses without defining, one line each
    • What the content assumes you know — the missing prerequisites that made it confusing
    • Where the content's own explanation is wrong or oversimplified, if it is — flag it, don't repeat it

Rules

  • Explaining ≠ endorsing. If the content's claim is contested, present the explanation and note the contest ("the video asserts X; the standard view is Y").
  • Analogies must survive scrutiny — say where the analogy breaks.
  • If the user points at a specific segment ("the part at 12:30", "section 3"), explain that segment in the context of the whole, not in isolation.
  • Don't pad: a concept that takes three sentences gets three sentences.
Files (bullshit-detector)
  • SKILL.md 1.7 KB
    ---
    name: explain
    description: Explain content or any concept inside it at the depth the user needs — ELI5, practitioner level, or expert deep-dive — with a jargon glossary and context the original assumes. Use when the user says "explain this", "what does X mean here", "break this down", "I don't understand this part", or shares content and asks how something in it works.
    ---
    
    # explain
    
    Make the content understandable without dumbing it down dishonestly.
    
    ## Workflow
    
    1. **Get the text** (via `fetch-content` skill script if it's a URL, else web fetch or paste).
    2. **Pick the depth** — from the user's request, or ask one short question if genuinely unclear:
       - **ELI5** — analogies, zero jargon, the core mechanism only
       - **Practitioner** — assumes general technical literacy, focuses on how it works and what to do with it
       - **Deep dive** — mechanisms, edge cases, history, competing views
    3. **Explain**, structured as:
       - The one-sentence version first
       - The mechanism: how it actually works, step by step
       - **Glossary**: every jargon term the content uses without defining, one line each
       - **What the content assumes you know** — the missing prerequisites that made it confusing
       - Where the content's own explanation is wrong or oversimplified, if it is — flag it, don't repeat it
    
    ## Rules
    
    - Explaining ≠ endorsing. If the content's claim is contested, present the explanation *and* note the contest ("the video asserts X; the standard view is Y").
    - Analogies must survive scrutiny — say where the analogy breaks.
    - If the user points at a specific segment ("the part at 12:30", "section 3"), explain that segment in the context of the whole, not in isolation.
    - Don't pad: a concept that takes three sentences gets three sentences.
    
  • VERSION 7 B · in bundle

Comments (0)

Sign in to join the conversation.

No comments yet.

Reviews (0)

No reviews yet.

Related