What problem does it solve? Complex philosophical or technical writing often fails readers not because ideas are hard, but because the text hides assumptions, unexplained terminology, or inaccessible references. This Skill distinguishes productive conceptual difficulty from unnecessary opacity so authors can fix real accessibility problems without dumbing down their work. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Difficulty Taxonomy: Classifies passages as conceptual, structural, terminological, evidential, referential, syntactic, stylistic, or accumulative difficulty before recommending any intervention. - 23-Step Audit Procedure: Tests contextual definition of concepts, external references, technical accessibility, transitions, scale shifts, causal interpretation, anthropomorphism, and cumulative reader load. - Structured Findings Report: Each finding includes evidence, difficulty type, reader reconstruction, diagnosis, severity classification (A–E), confidence, and a calibrated recommendation. - Use Case: An author of a rhizomatic philosophy-of-AI manuscript runs this Skill to verify that readers unfamiliar with Deleuze and Guattari can still reconstruct core concepts like rhizome, assemblage, and node from the text alone. ## Quick Start Review my manuscript and report every passage where an attentive non-specialist reader would be blocked by unexplained terminology, hidden assumptions, or inaccessible references.
