What problem does it solve? Technical answers often fail to land: they quote error strings instead of causes, bury the conclusion under caveats, or acknowledge a remark instead of answering it. This Skill re-explains a failed answer — or answers a fresh question — as a plain-language causal chain, cause first, in the reader's own nouns. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Two invocation modes: Run bare against an answer that did not land to re-explain it, or invoke with a question to answer it under the plain-language rule, investigation included. - Three-step pass: Identify the cause, reason, or constraint the answer rests on (reading history, input, or configuration first); draft conclusion-first in the reader's nouns; then re-check the draft before writing it out. - Six named defects as a checklist: Symptom-as-finding, buried lede, untranslated nouns, broken chain, fog, and receipt — each with an observable tell, so a bad report can be called out in one word. - Use Case: A user replies "just tell me why it broke" after a jargon-heavy diagnosis. Invoke this Skill to rewrite the diagnosis as a causal chain: what failed, why each step followed, and what would settle any remaining uncertainty. ## Quick Start Re-explain your last answer in plain language, cause first, using the plainly skill.
