Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From grimoire
Verifies genuine comprehension by explaining concepts in plain language, identifying gaps, and refining understanding until explanations are clear and jargon-free.
npx claudepluginhub jeffreytse/grimoire --plugin grimoireHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/grimoire:apply-feynman-techniqueThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Expose the exact boundaries of your understanding by attempting to explain a concept in plain language — gaps surface as vague language, circular definitions, and the impulse to reach for the textbook — then eliminate each gap until the explanation is smooth.
Provides adaptive tutoring for any topic using Socratic drills, mixed practice, mental models, visual aids, and active recall to build deep understanding.
Explains concepts via Socratic dialogue: curiosity openings, guided reasoning, one analogy, reflective prompts. Activates on explain/teach/understand requests.
Generates tailored explanations of concepts in physics, AI/ML, statistics, math, or papers using parallel Gemini/Codex MAGI exploration, synthesized by Claude.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Expose the exact boundaries of your understanding by attempting to explain a concept in plain language — gaps surface as vague language, circular definitions, and the impulse to reach for the textbook — then eliminate each gap until the explanation is smooth.
Adopted by: Barbara Oakley's "Learning How to Learn" (Coursera) — the most-enrolled MOOC in history with 4 million+ learners across 200+ countries — makes the Feynman Technique a core module. Khan Academy's pedagogical philosophy (Sal Khan) is grounded in the same principle: you understand something when you can explain it simply. Cal Newport's "How to Become a Straight-A Student" (2006) codifies it as the primary deep-understanding technique used by top university students. Used in problem-based learning (PBL) curricula at Harvard Medical School, McMaster, and Maastricht, where self-explanation is a required component of case-based rounds.
Impact: Chi et al. (1994) showed students who self-explained while studying scored 40% better on subsequent problem-solving tests than students who re-read the same material (n=40, physics). Dunlosky et al. (2013) systematic review of 10 popular study techniques rated elaborative interrogation — the cognitive mechanism behind the Feynman Technique — as "high utility", one of only 2 out of 10 techniques to receive that rating; re-reading (the most common technique) received "low utility". Nestojko et al. (2014) found students who expected to teach material scored 28% higher on recall and 19% higher on transfer tests than students who studied for a personal test.
Why best: Re-reading and highlighting produce familiarity, not comprehension — learners mistake recognition for understanding. Summarising preserves the original phrasing and hides gaps behind borrowed terminology. The Feynman Technique forces generation of a novel explanation in plain language, which surfaces exactly where understanding is missing. Unlike pure retrieval practice (flashcards, practice tests), it targets conceptual depth and the ability to reason with ideas rather than recall facts — making it the superior technique for complex, interrelated, or heavily abstract concepts.
Sources: Chi et al. (Cognitive Science, 1994); Dunlosky et al. (Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2013); Nestojko et al. (Memory & Cognition, 2014); Oakley (2014)
Name only — no definition yet. This commits you to explaining one concept. If the name requires a qualifier to be specific ("Nash equilibrium in repeated games"), include it.
Write a complete explanation without:
Use:
Write continuously — do not stop to check notes or source material.
Re-read what you wrote. Mark every point where you:
| Symptom | What it reveals |
|---|---|
| Reached for jargon without defining it | Borrowed vocabulary, not owned understanding |
| Wrote "it depends" without specifying on what | Incomplete causal model |
| Gave a circular definition | No underlying mental model exists |
| Could not produce a concrete example | Abstract knowledge not grounded |
| Explanation contradicts itself | Two conflicting partial models |
| Felt the urge to "check the book" | Gap in knowledge, not retrieval failure |
These are your gaps. List each one explicitly: "I cannot explain why X leads to Y without using [jargon]."
For each gap identified in Step 3:
Rewrite the explanation from Step 2, this time:
A working analogy does not have to be perfect — it has to be accurate within the scope you need.
The explanation is complete when:
Typical cycles: 2–3 passes for a single concept; 4–6 for dense interrelated topics.
1. Software engineer learning Byzantine fault tolerance Step 2 draft: "It's when some nodes fail in a malicious or arbitrary way..." — reaches for "Byzantine" to define Byzantine. Gap identified. Step 4: read the two-generals problem analogy. Step 5 rewrite: "Imagine 5 generals voting on whether to attack. Up to 1 general might be a traitor who sends conflicting votes to different generals. Byzantine fault tolerance means the system still reaches the right decision even with 1 liar — it needs at least 3×(liars) + 1 = 4 honest generals to guarantee it."
2. MBA student learning option pricing Step 2 draft: "The Black-Scholes formula prices an option based on volatility and time..." — cannot explain why volatility increases option value. Gap identified. Step 4: re-read the concept of uncertainty creating upside without downside (options have asymmetric payoffs). Step 5 rewrite: "An option is like insurance. Higher volatility = more chances the stock shoots up past your strike price. You capture the upside but your loss is capped at the premium. Higher chaos = more valuable insurance."
3. Student learning Newton's third law Step 2 draft: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" — verbatim textbook. Gap: cannot explain why a wall doesn't move when you push it. Step 4: read about force pairs and mass. Step 5: "When you push a wall, the wall pushes back equally. But the wall is connected to the Earth (billions of kg), so the acceleration is unmeasurably small (F=ma). You feel the reaction; you just can't see the wall move."