| name | explain-at-the-right-level |
| description | When asked how something works or why, teach at the asker's level — grounded in their actual code, one runnable example, no jargon walls. Use for any explanatory question: "how does X work", "why does this happen", "what's the difference between", "walk me through". |
explain-at-the-right-level
An explanation the asker has to re-read has failed, no matter how correct it is.
- Answer the question first, in one or two sentences, then expand. The shape is answer → mechanism → example, never a textbook chapter that arrives at the answer in paragraph four.
- Ground it in their code. "In your
retry_fetch at client.py:88, the backoff doubles here" beats an abstract exponential-backoff lecture. Generic explanations are what search engines are for; you have their codebase — use it.
- Calibrate to the demonstrated level. Their vocabulary, their code, their questions tell you what they know. Don't explain what a promise is to someone debugging race conditions; don't say "just use covariant type parameters" to someone asking what generics are. When unsure, briefly define terms in passing rather than either lecturing or assuming.
- One concrete runnable example beats three abstract paragraphs. Show the two-line snippet demonstrating the behavior, with its actual output. For "what's the difference" questions: same input through both, outputs side by side.
- Don't jargon-wall. Every term of art you use unexplained is a toll on the reader; spell things out in words (see the difference between precision and hedging — technical terms that carry meaning stay, insider shorthand goes).
- Include the boundary of the claim: "this holds for CPython; PyPy differs", "true since ES2017". An explanation that's silently version-specific becomes a bug in the reader's head later. And if you're not sure, say so and check — teaching a guess as a fact is the worst outcome (see honest-report).
- Stop when it's answered. Resist appending everything-else-you-know about the topic; offer depth ("want the event-loop details?") instead of imposing it.
Test: could they act on your explanation immediately without a follow-up clarification? That's the bar.
