Back to Details

feynman

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Press a decision you just made until you can explain it, or the gap where you can't is named.
对你刚刚做出的决策进行追问，直到你能解释清楚，或者明确指出你无法解释的漏洞。

Goal

目标

The moment after a choice is when understanding is cheapest to fake: you can restate an option fluently without having earned the reasons behind it, and by the time that gap matters the decision is load-bearing elsewhere. The Feynman test catches it — if you can't explain a thing plainly, you don't yet understand it. So no one hands you the rationale; a fresh critic that never made the decision presses for what you can't actually explain, and a shallow answer draws a narrower question instead of a pass. The result is a decision you can now explain under real pressure, or an honest flag that you can't yet.
做出选择后的那一刻，最容易伪装自己已经理解了：你可以流畅地复述某个选项，却并未真正理解其背后的原因，而当这个认知漏洞产生影响时，该决策已经在其他环节产生了实际作用。费曼测试（Feynman test）能捕捉到这种情况——如果你无法用直白的语言解释一件事，说明你还没有真正理解它。因此，没有人会给你现成的理由；一个从未参与决策的中立质疑者会追问你真正无法解释的部分，而肤浅的回答只会引来更具体的问题，而非通过验证。最终结果要么是你能在真实压力下解释该决策，要么是诚实地发现自己目前还做不到。

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Trigger: fire right after a decision is made — typically just after options were laid out with no argument for any, and one was picked.
  2. Restate, don't justify: state the decision neutrally. Do not supply the reasoning behind it, and do not let the user borrow reasoning that was never actually given.
  3. Isolate the critic: hand the decision — not any reasoning — to a fresh, context-free sub-session that never watched the decision get made. Have it press for gaps: what a skeptical outsider would ask, what is assumed but unstated, what would have to be true for the choice to hold.
  4. Return one gap at a time: give the user the sharpest unresolved gap and ask them to explain it in their own words. Never batch gaps into a checklist.
  5. Judge the explanation: if the answer actually resolves the gap, close it and move on. If it restates the question, deflects, or leans on authority ("the agent suggested it") instead of reasoning, do not accept it.
  6. Narrow, don't repeat: on a shallow answer, don't ask the same question again — narrow to the exact part that stayed vague and ask that. Keep narrowing each round; never widen back to a generic "are you sure?"
  7. Stop condition: after repeated rounds, either every gap is genuinely explained, or one isn't. Both are valid endings.
  8. On an unexplained gap: don't force a resolution or let the user paper over it. Name the unresolved point specifically and flag the decision for re-review — not a verdict that it was wrong, only that it isn't yet earned.
  1. 触发时机：在决策刚做出后立即启动——通常是在列出多个选项但未对任何选项进行论证，且已选定其中一个选项的情况下。
  2. 复述而非辩护：中立地陈述决策内容。不要提供背后的推理过程，也不要让用户借用从未真正给出过的理由。
  3. 引入独立质疑者：将决策内容（而非任何推理过程）交给一个全新的、无上下文的子会话（sub-session），该子会话从未参与过决策过程。让它追问漏洞：持怀疑态度的外部人士会提出什么问题？哪些是被默认但未明确说明的假设？要让该选择成立，哪些条件必须为真？
  4. 逐个返回漏洞：向用户呈现最尖锐的未解决漏洞，并要求他们用自己的话解释。切勿将多个漏洞整合成一个清单一次性抛出。
  5. 评判解释内容：如果回答真正解决了漏洞，则关闭该漏洞并继续处理下一个。如果回答只是重复问题、转移话题或依赖权威（如“Agent建议的”）而非推理，则不接受该回答。
  6. 细化问题而非重复提问：如果回答肤浅，不要重复相同的问题——要细化到仍模糊不清的具体部分再提问。每一轮都要细化问题，切勿退回到笼统的“你确定吗？”这类问题。
  7. 停止条件：经过多轮追问后，要么所有漏洞都被真正解释清楚，要么存在一个无法解释的漏洞。这两种情况都是有效的结束状态。
  8. 针对无法解释的漏洞：不要强迫用户解决，也不要让用户敷衍过去。要明确指出未解决的具体问题，并标记该决策需要重新审核——这并非判定决策错误，只是表明该决策的合理性尚未得到充分验证。

Rules

规则

  • Never supply the rationale before the user attempts one. Handing reasoning over first is the frame-injection failure this skill exists to avoid.
  • The pressing comes from an isolated sub-session, never self-assessed in the session that made the choice — a mind can't un-know the decision it just made, any more than an author can un-know their own draft.
  • Narrow, don't repeat. A second identical question teaches the user to restate louder; a narrower one tests whether the gap actually closed.
  • Never force a resolution. An honestly unexplained gap is a usable result — a signal the decision needs another look — not a failure of the skill.
  • User-invoked on purpose: a challenge-every-decision reflex always in reach would bias the user toward chronic self-doubt. It fires only when deliberately reached for.
  • 在用户尝试解释之前，切勿提供任何理由。提前给出理由正是这项技能旨在避免的框架注入错误。
  • 追问必须来自独立的子会话，绝不能由做出决策的会话自行评估——一个人无法忘记自己刚刚做出的决策，就像作者无法忘记自己的草稿一样。
  • 细化问题而非重复提问。重复相同的问题只会让用户更大声地复述答案；而细化后的问题才能检验漏洞是否真正被填补。
  • 不要强迫解决漏洞。诚实地发现无法解释的漏洞是有用的结果——这是一个信号，表明该决策需要重新审视——而非技能的失败。
  • 需用户主动调用：如果随时都触发“质疑每一个决策”的机制，会让用户陷入长期的自我怀疑。该技能仅在用户主动调用时启动。

Verification

验证

  1. Compare the user's first answer to a gap against their answer after narrowing — the round-over-round change in what they can actually explain is the real signal, not merely that no more objections came up.
  2. Every closed gap traces to an explanation that resolved the actual question, not one that restated it.
  3. Any gap still open is named specifically — which assumption, not a vague "the user struggled" — and carried forward as a flag on the decision, never silently dropped.
  4. The rationale was never supplied by this skill; every reason that closed a gap came from the user.
  1. 将用户对某个漏洞的首次回答与细化问题后的回答进行对比——用户在多轮追问中实际能解释的内容变化才是真正的信号，而非仅仅没有更多异议。
  2. 每一个被关闭的漏洞都对应一个真正解决了问题的解释，而非重复问题的回答。
  3. 任何未解决的漏洞都要明确指出具体内容——比如哪项假设未被解释，而非模糊地说“用户难以解释”——并作为决策的标记保留下来，绝不能悄悄忽略。
  4. 本技能从未提供过任何理由；所有填补漏洞的理由都来自用户。