القائمة
Trigger when users say "explain with a story," "tell me a fable," "give me an analogy," "ELI5," or "help me understand intuitively" about a concept. Uses fables to illuminate abstract concepts — the story never mentions the term, only revealing it at the end.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | concept-fable |
| description | Trigger when users say "explain with a story," "tell me a fable," "give me an analogy," "ELI5," or "help me understand intuitively" about a concept. Uses fables to illuminate abstract concepts — the story never mentions the term, only revealing it at the end. |
When a user wants to understand an abstract concept, don't throw a textbook definition at them. Instead, craft a carefully designed fable. The reader becomes immersed, only realizing near the end what it's about — then receives a clear explanation.
Core principle: Let them realize through story, not remember through definition.
Follow these 8 steps:
Relationship between core elements and metaphor points: Every core element must have a corresponding metaphor point that maps to it (this is the minimum). Additional metaphor points (3–5 total, including the ≥2 core mappings) enrich the story's details, but must not overshadow the core mapping. In short: Core elements: ≥2 must be mapped. Total metaphor points: 3–5.
Check with the user when:
Confirm understanding: "So this concept is essentially about ______, and the key insight is ______ — is that right?"
Confirm scene preference — assess the concept first, then decide whether to ask:
Story type — Choose based on the concept's core characteristics:
Selection criteria:
Narrative tone — Choose based on the concept's emotional flavor:
| Emotional Flavor | Recommended Tone | Example Scenario |
|---|---|---|
| Cautionary / warning (e.g., technical debt, deadlock) | Measured, slightly rueful | Campfire storyteller style, unhurried |
| Revealing / counterintuitive (e.g., leaky abstraction, survivorship bias) | Light, with a twist | Like telling a "guess what happened" story |
| Trade-off / dilemma (e.g., CAP theorem) | Neutral, impartial | Plain narration; let the reader decide |
| Mechanism / principle (e.g., dependency injection) | Everyday, down-to-earth | Casual, conversational — like explaining over coffee |
Simple concept exemption: For foundational concepts like "what is a variable" or "what is a loop," default to an everyday conversational tone — no need to match every row in the table above. The table is primarily for complex or abstract concepts that need emotional guidance.
Before writing a single word, verify that the chosen story type's conflict structure can faithfully reproduce the concept's causal chain from Step 1:
Three-act structure:
Writing principles:
Metaphor Concreteness Principle (hard requirement):
The metaphor vehicle must be something the reader can directly perceive in daily life. It must pass the Grandma Test:
Can your grandma understand, in one sentence, what the metaphor vehicle is? Yes → use it. No → swap it out.
---
## Explanation
### [Concept Name]
**One-sentence definition:** [Concise summary]
**Why this concept matters:** [1–2 sentences on practical significance]
**Key points:**
1. [What it is]
2. [Why it occurs / why it works this way]
3. [How to handle / apply it]
**Story-to-concept mapping:**
| Story Element | Concept Mapping |
|---------------|-----------------|
| [Character/Event] | [Concept element] |
| [Turning point] | [Core mechanism] |
**Prerequisite knowledge:** [If the explanation uses terms the reader might be unfamiliar with (e.g., using "bandwidth" to explain network latency, briefly explain bandwidth here in 1–2 sentences). Omit this line if not needed.]
**Food for thought:** [1–2 sentences to spark reflection]
**Story continuation (optional):** [If the concept has a naturally closely related concept (e.g., deadlock → deadlock prevention, npm → dependency hell), continue the story in 2–3 sentences to introduce the related concept. Give only a one-sentence definition, no full explanation template. End with "Want me to expand on this one?" Skip if no closely related concept exists.]
After completing the main explanation, proactively check whether a closely related concept exists (problem → solution, tool → common pitfall, phenomenon → adjacent phenomenon). If one does, don't skip the story continuation — it's one of the skill's most effective hooks.
Continuation constraints:
After writing the story, review the story against each item. Rewrite at most 2 times. If it still doesn't pass, output the current best version and honestly tell the user what you're not satisfied with:
concept-fable-{concept-name}.md.The following logic triggers after the user gives feedback on the output, not as part of the workflow steps:
The following logic fires before writing begins, to decide the story strategy:
These are common failure modes. Actively avoid them while writing:
| Anti-Pattern | What It Looks Like | Why It Fails | The Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Puppet characters | Characters do things against their own nature to serve the metaphor | The reader feels the characters are "unreal," and the story collapses | First conceive the character's plausible motivation, then find the coincidental resemblance to the concept — not the reverse |
| Over-metaphoring | Every detail maps to the concept; the story reads like a cipher | Becomes a textbook in disguise, loses all charm | Only map the core elements; let the remaining details serve the story's vividness |
| Premature reveal | "This is like concept X" said at the beginning or mid-story | Kills the suspense; the reader stops "realizing" on their own | Hold back — let the story reach its natural conclusion. The reveal belongs only at the end. |
| Hollow story | The story has no conflict, no tension | The reader won't remember it — no emotion, no memory | Ensure there's a clear dilemma, choice, or twist. Make the reader care about the characters. |
| ⚠️ Concept distortion | Twisting the concept's core meaning to make a better story | The most serious error — the reader learns an incorrect understanding | After writing, self-check: if a reader only read the story and not the explanation, would their understanding be correct? |
| ⚠️ Metaphor more abstract than concept | Using magic runes to explain leaky abstractions, or fantasy power-leveling systems to explain design patterns | The reader has to decode the metaphor itself first — the barrier isn't lowered, it's raised | Use the Grandma Test: swap the vehicle for everyday scenes (a universal remote, a translation app glitch) — ensure the vehicle itself requires no explanation |
If a concept genuinely doesn't suit the fable format (too abstract, no concrete equivalent), don't force it:
First, try to find the most concrete facet of the concept and write a story around that.
If there's truly no good story angle, switch to a "scene analogy" (a short metaphor rather than a full story). For example:
To explain "recursion": "Imagine you're standing between two mirrors. You see a reflection within a reflection within a reflection — each layer identical to the last, just smaller. But there's always a 'smallest you' at the deepest point. When light reaches there, the reflections start coming back layer by layer. That's recursion."
If the concept is too broad (e.g., "object-oriented programming"), suggest the user narrow it down (e.g., "encapsulation," "polymorphism").
If you can't find a scene the user is familiar with, be honest rather than forcing it. For example: "I'm struggling to find a scene you'd be familiar with for this concept — would it be okay if I used a more everyday scenario instead?" The user would rather accept a slightly less precise but natural story than sit through a forced, awkward analogy.
Each maps to a specific check in Step 7:
| Criterion | How to Verify |
|---|---|
| Story before concept | Self-check #3: Is the story readable on its own? |
| Subtle but not obscure | Self-check #2: Is the core tension precisely mapped? Does the causal chain align with the operating mechanism? |
| Accurate but not rigid | Self-check #1: Do the characters behave naturally? |
| Respect the reader's intelligence | Self-check #4: Is the reveal timed right? |
| One story, one concept | Self-check #5: Any redundant metaphors or plot points? |
| Metaphor lowers the barrier | Self-check #6: Does the metaphor vehicle pass the Grandma Test? |
| Explanation creates no new confusion | Self-check #7: Are all new terms briefly explained? |