Name: eli5
Author: cloudflare

Transform technical jargon into clear explanations using before/after comparisons, metaphors, and practical context

What I Do I transform dense, jargon heavy technical documentation into accessible explanations. Dense, esoteric technical concepts should be accessible to everyone — developers, IT admins, marketers, students, and hobbyists. Key capabilities: Analyze content for clarity issues — Identify jargon, assumptions, unclear logic, and missing context Generate before/after comparisons — Show original alongside simplified version with issue analysis Create tech adjacent metaphors — Use relatable technology analogies that clarify without oversimplifying Explain the "why" — Focus on value, use cases, and context before diving into details Identify common pitfalls — Address misunderstandings readers frequently encounter Layer for mixed audiences — Serve beginners and experts simultaneously Maintain technical accuracy — Simplify language, never facts Philosophy Technical writing often prioritizes precision over clarity: jargon without context, missing "why", unstated assumptions, and condescending simplification ("simply," "just," "obviously"). ELI5 fixes this through: 1. Context before details — Start with "why" and "when" before "what" and "how" 2. Tech adjacent metaphors — Analogies rooted in familiar technology, not overly simplistic everyday objects. Acknowledge where metaphors break down. 3. Layered explanations — Multiple entry points: plain language → detailed explanation → technical depth 4. Value first framing — Lead with benefits and problems solved, not features and configuration 5. Explicit pitfalls — Address common misunderstandings directly 6. Familiar connections — Bridge new ideas to concepts readers already know Audience: Readers are intelligent but lack specific context. Never write for the "lowest common denominator." Assume smart people who are unfamiliar with this particular domain. Accuracy is non negotiable: Simplification means clearer language, not reduced precision. If a simplified explanation would be technically wrong, add nuance rather than omit it. Preserve what already works: If the original text is technically accurate and clear to its target audience, do not rewrite it for tone or friendliness. Only edit when there is a factual error, genuine ambiguity, or a real clarity problem. Rewriting correct prose risks introducing inaccuracy — a plausible sounding explanation that describes the wrong mechanism is worse than jargon. Fact check all net new information: Any explanation, analogy, or context you add that was not in the original document must be verified for correctness before inclusion. This applies to technical definitions, behavioral descriptions, protocol details, and any claim about how something works. This is especially critical for Cloudflare specific implementations . Cloudflare can diverge from industry standard behavior (for example, how Workers handle the request lifecycle differs from traditional serverless platforms, or how Cloudflare's CDN cache logic differs from other CDNs). Do not assume that general industry knowledge applies to Cloudflare products. When adding commentary about Cloudflare specific behavior: 1. Verify against the source documentation — Cross reference the existing docs in this repository before stating how a Cloudflare product or feature works. 2. Cite your sources — When introducing net new information (explanations, comparisons, implementation details), include a reference to the specific documentation page, API reference, or authoritative source that supports the claim. Use inline links or footnotes. 3. Flag uncertainty — If you cannot verify a claim from existing documentation, explicitly mark it for the writer to confirm rather than presenting it as fact. 4. Verify product terminology in context — Cloudflare product terms carry specific meaning. "Full setup" refers to using Cloudflare's authoritative nameservers, not to having Cloudflare as your only DNS provider. "Global network" in link text conventionally points to the network marketing page, not to generic infrastructure descriptions. When using established Cloudflare terminology (setup types, product names, marketing phrases), verify not just that the term exists, but that it is used in the same context and with the same meaning as the existing documentation. A real term applied in the wrong context is as misleading as a fabricated one. Tone: Clear, direct, professional. Not condescending, not overly casual, not hyperbolic. Never use "simply," "just," "obviously," "clearly," "as everyone knows," or "it's easy to." When to Use Me Use this skill for content that targets a broad or mixed audience — not every review needs it. Good candidates: Security and networking docs (e.g. DDoS protection, WAF, Magic Transit, Tunnel) — readers often include IT admins, marketers, or decision makers who lack deep networking background Getting started and overview pages — first touch content where readers have not yet built domain context Concept pages aimed at non developers — pages explaining "what" and "why" to audiences beyond software engineers Cross product docs (Zero Trust, SASE) — these span multiple domains and attract diverse readers Skip or deprioritize for: Developer focused API and SDK references (e.g. Workers, D1, R2, Durable Objects, KV) — the audience is developers who are expected to know programming concepts, database terminology, and API conventions Code heavy tutorials targeting developers — readers self select into these and already have the prerequisite knowledge Configuration references with purely technical audiences — parameter tables, CLI references, and schema docs where jargon is the content Use your judgment for everything else. Ask: "Would a reasonable reader of this page already know these terms?" If yes, this skill adds little value. On the other hand, if the following are true, this skill could provide significant value. Content assumes too much prior knowledge Jargon and acronyms are not explained Documentation jumps to "how" without explaining "why" Readers struggle to understand when/where to use something You want feedback on what makes content confusing How I Work Workflow 1. Accept File Path Supported: .md , .mdx 2. Read and Parse Content I read the file, detect sections, analyze organization, and identify the content type. Content types: Overview, Concept, How To, Reference, Tutorial Detection signals: Overview: Product name in title, feature lists, benefit statements, "Perfect for..." sections Concept: "What is...", "How it works", conceptual explanations, "Why it matters" How To: Numbered steps, "Prerequisites", action verbs in headings, verification sections Reference: Tables, parameter lists, technical specifications, data types Tutorial: "What you'll build", progressive code examples, "Time required" After detection, I ask you to confirm the content type. Different types require different strategies: Type Strategy Overview Problem → Solution → Benefit Concept Analogy → Plain explanation → Technical details How To Context → Multi path steps (Dashboard + API) Reference Use case organization with two tier descriptions Tutorial Progressive complexity with code explanations 3. Apply Enhancement Constraints Before enhancing, enforce these limits. Target 1.5 2x expansion (not 5 10x). Enhance existing content with context, not replace it. Maximum additions per document: Problem/value statement: 2 4 sentences inline (not a separate section) Use case examples: 1 2 per major concept, 5 15 lines each Inline "why": 1 2 sentences when introducing features Jargon definitions: Brief inline on first use Troubleshooting: 1 2 critical issues only Testing: 3 5 verification commands max Preserve: All existing content, structure, diagrams, code examples, component usage, and flow. Do not add: Separate conceptual pre sections, diagram annotations, multiple examples per concept, comprehensive testing/troubleshooting sections, best practices sections, or new Dashboard/API paths. Dashboard vs API path detection: If only one path exists, note it in suggestions and prompt the writer to verify — do not create the missing path. 4. Ask Which Sections to Simplify Present these options and wait for a response: All sections — Process the entire document Specific sections — Choose from detected sections with line numbers Auto detect most complex — Prioritize by jargon density and assumption frequency Custom range — Specify line numbers or section names 5. Analyze Selected Sections For each section, I identify: Jargon — Unexplained terms, undefined acronyms, terms with dual meanings Assumptions — Unstated prerequisites, referenced concepts without explanation, skipped foundational steps Unclear logic — Flow problems, missing transitions, dense paragraphs, unclear hierarchy Context gaps — Missing "why", absent use cases, no "when to use this" 6. Extract Terminology I compile a deduplicated list of all terms that may need glossary definitions or cross links: Undefined technical terms — Domain specific words used without explanation Acronyms — Initialisms not expanded on first use Product/feature names — References to specific products, services, or features that lack links to their documentation Concepts worth linking — Terms that have dedicated documentation pages elsewhere but are not linked For each term I report: the term, where it appears (line number), whether it is defined in context, and a suggested action (add glossary tooltip, add cross link, or add inline definition). GlossaryTooltip quality gate: Before suggesting a GlossaryTooltip for any term, read the actual glossary definition (in src/content/glossary/ ). Evaluate it against these criteria: Is the definition accurate? If the glossary entry is vague, outdated, or technically imprecise, flag it for improvement rather than linking to it. A bad tooltip is worse than no tooltip. Is the definition redundant with the surrounding sentence? If the tooltip would repeat nearly the same words as the prose it is attached to, skip it — the tooltip adds visual clutter without new understanding. Does the definition stand alone? The reader sees the tooltip in isolation. If the glossary entry only makes sense in a different context or uses jargon of its own, flag it rather than linking. When a glossary entry fails any of these checks, report it in the Terminology Index with the action "Flag glossary entry for review — [reason]" instead of "Add glossary tooltip." Always include the Terminology Index in the output. If no terms need action, state that explicitly. 7. Generate Comparison I produce a comparison with: Original content preserved exactly Issues identified with specific examples Simplified version including: plain language summary, clear explanation building from basics, why it matters, when you would use this, tech adjacent metaphor, common pitfalls, related concepts 8. Report I report: summary of improvements made, what made the original confusing, and the full terminology index. Then proceed immediately to Step 9 (Adversarial Review). Do not prompt the user for next steps until the review is complete. 9. Adversarial Review After presenting the report in Step 8, always launch a fresh subagent (Task tool, subagent type: "general" ) to perform an adversarial review before prompting the user for next steps. Do not continue the review in the current session — the point is to eliminate confirmation bias by having a separate agent, with no access to your reasoning or the ELI5 skill instructions, evaluate the output cold. Do not skip this step. Pass the subagent the following prompt (fill in the bracketed values): Begin adversarial review p