Menü
Uses the Feynman technique - explain simply to detect where knowledge gaps exist.
Mit Codex oder Claude installieren Kopieren Sie diesen Prompt, fügen Sie ihn in Codex, Claude oder einen anderen Assistant ein und lassen Sie die Skill-Seite prüfen und installieren.
Basierend auf der SOC-Berufsklassifikation
Designs API contracts for consumer experience first — making correct usage obvious and incorrect usage impossible.
Replaces adjectives with evidence, claims with demonstrations, and promises with proof for conversion-oriented writing.
Forces the model to build a genuine prosecution case against its own answer before delivering it.
Detects and corrects objective drift during extended tasks by periodically checking work against the original request.
Decides whether to ask clarifying questions or proceed with an answer, optimizing for information value vs. delay cost.
Self-selects and sequences the right depth-skills proportional to task consequence, preventing both under- and over-analysis.
| name | teach |
| description | Uses the Feynman technique - explain simply to detect where knowledge gaps exist. |
Richard Feynman: "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough."
The act of teaching exposes gaps that the act of doing hides. When you know something well enough to answer, you may not know it well enough to explain. The difference is your blind spots.
This skill forces explanation through a beginner's lens to surface hidden knowledge gaps.
You are about to deliver an answer that:
These are symptoms of unrevealed knowledge gaps. The answer is complete enough to sound right but incomplete enough to fail when used.
Take your answer and rewrite it as if explaining to a curious beginner:
SIMPLE EXPLANATION
────────────────────────────────────────
Audience: Someone who knows basic concepts but not this domain
Constraint: No jargon without definition. No skipping steps.
Each sentence should be verifiable by the reader.
[Write 3-5 paragraphs explaining the answer from fundamentals]
────────────────────────────────────────
The test: Could a smart person with no domain knowledge read this and either:
If neither — gap detected.
Artifact: The simple explanation. Step 2 stress-tests it.
Imagine a beginner reading your explanation. Write 5 questions they would ask:
STUDENT QUESTIONS
────────────────────────────────────────
Q1: [Basic clarification - what does X mean?]
Q2: [Step gap - what happens between A and B?]
Q3: [Edge case - what about scenario X?]
Q4: [Why - why this approach and not another?]
Q5: [Action - how do I actually do this in practice?]
────────────────────────────────────────
These questions are not rhetorical. Actually answer them. If you struggle:
Artifact: Answered student questions. Step 3 catalogs gaps.
Review your answers to Step 2. Write the gap report:
GAP REPORT
────────────────────────────────────────
No gaps found: [if all questions answered easily]
Gap type:
- Terminology gap: [terms used but not defined]
- Step gap: [jumps in logic or process]
- Edge case gap: [scenarios not addressed]
- Assumption gap: [decisions not explained]
- Practical gap: [missing how-to detail]
Gap severity:
- Blocking: Cannot act without this
- Risky: Will fail in common cases
- Incomplete: Works but suboptimal
Gap #1: [description] — Severity: [Blocking/Risky/Incomplete]
Gap #2: [description] — Severity: [Blocking/Risky/Incomplete]
────────────────────────────────────────
Artifact: The gap report. Step 4 addresses critical gaps.
For each Blocking/Risky gap, update your answer:
REFINED ANSWER
────────────────────────────────────────
Original gap: [Gap #1 description]
Fix applied: [how the answer now addresses this]
New text: [the refined passage - 1-3 sentences]
Original gap: [Gap #2 description]
Fix applied: [how the answer now addresses this]
New text: [the refined passage - 1-3 sentences]
[If no gaps: state that the explanation was complete]
────────────────────────────────────────
TEACH is most valuable when:
It complements EXCAVATE: TEACH finds knowledge gaps, EXCAVATE finds assumption gaps. Use both for thorough verification.
Knowing enough to do is different from knowing enough to teach. The doing uses pattern matching and implicit knowledge. Teaching requires explicit, decomposable knowledge. Gaps in explicit knowledge don't surface during problem-solving — they surface during explanation. This skill weaponizes that delay: by forcing teaching before delivery, it converts implicit blind spots into visible gaps that can be fixed before the answer ships.