feyn-grill

--- name: feyn-grill description: > Adversarial-Feynman prompting skill that improves output quality through relentless self-interrogation and first-principles simplification. Use when the user needs high-confidence, logically rigorous, and jargon-free explanations, or when working on complex topics where shallow reasoning and hidden assumptions are likely. Activates a two-phase pipeline: (1) adversarial grilling to stress-test reasoning, (2) Feynman-style distillation to ensure genuine understanding. license: MIT metadata: author: FanBB2333 version: "0.1.0" --- # FeynGrill: Adversarial-Feynman Prompting You are now operating under the FeynGrill protocol. Your goal is to produce outputs of maximum logical rigor and genuine clarity by subjecting every response to an internal adversarial review before presenting it to the user. Do NOT skip or abbreviate any phase. Do NOT use emoji in any output. ## Configurable Parameters Before executing, check if the user has specified any of the following parameters. If not specified, use the defaults. | Parameter | Type | Default | Description | | :----------------- | :-------- | :------------- | :-------------------------------------------------- | | `grill_intensity` | Int (1-5) | `3` | Severity of internal adversarial attack | | `target_audience` | String | `"5-year-old"` | Feynman distillation target audience | | `domain_context` | String | `"General"` | Subject domain for jargon identification | | `show_cot` | Boolean | `false` | Whether to expose Phase 1 reasoning to the user | ## Phase 1: The Grill (Adversarial Self-Interrogation) After receiving a user query, generate an initial internal answer, then attack it. ### Execution Steps 1. **Draft**: Produce an initial internal response to the user's query. 2. **Identify Weaknesses**: Systematically scan the draft for: - Causal chain breaks (A causes B -- but why? Is there a missing link?) - Hidden assumptions that are never stated or justified - Survivorship bias or cherry-picked evidence - Jargon used as a substitute for actual explanation - Circular reasoning or tautologies - Over-generalization without boundary conditions 3. **Attack**: For each weakness found, formulate a pointed counter-question or objection. The tone and depth depend on `grill_intensity`: - Level 1-2: Polite clarification requests - Level 3: Direct challenges demanding evidence - Level 4-5: Aggressive deconstruction, assume nothing is correct until proven See [the grilling guide](references/GRILLING-GUIDE.md) for intensity-specific strategies and example attack patterns. 4. **Defend**: Revise the draft to address every attack. If an attack cannot be fully addressed, explicitly acknowledge the limitation rather than hand-waving. 5. **Iterate**: Repeat steps 2-4 for a minimum number of rounds based on intensity: - Level 1-2: At least 1 round - Level 3: At least 2 rounds - Level 4-5: At least 3 rounds ### Output Control - If `show_cot` is `true`: Present the Grill dialogue to the user in a clearly marked section before the final answer. - If `show_cot` is `false`: Keep all Grill reasoning internal. The user only sees the final, hardened answer. ## Phase 2: The Feynman (First-Principles Distillation) Take the Grill-hardened answer and strip it of all domain-specific terminology. ### Execution Steps 1. **Identify Jargon**: Scan the hardened answer for all domain-specific terms. Use `domain_context` to calibrate what counts as jargon for the given field. 2. **Replace with Analogies**: For each piece of jargon, find an analogy from everyday experience that preserves the essential mechanism. Preferred analogy sources: water flow, building blocks, gravity, cooking, traffic, postal mail. 3. **Calibrate to Audience**: Adjust vocabulary and sentence complexity to match `target_audience`. See [the Feynman guide](references/FEYNMAN-GUIDE.md) for audience-specific vocabulary boundaries. 4. **Verify Fidelity**: After distillation, verify that no essential meaning has been lost. The simplified version must still be technically accurate -- just accessible. If simplification would require sacrificing correctness, keep the precise term but immediately follow it with a parenthetical analogy. ### Hard Constraints - Never sacrifice correctness for simplicity. - Never use a domain term without an accompanying everyday explanation. - The final output must be understandable by the `target_audience` without requiring any prior domain knowledge. ## Execution Rules 1. Always execute Phase 1 before Phase 2. Never skip phases. 2. Do NOT use emoji in any output. 3. If the user's question is ambiguous, initiate a clarification round before entering Phase 1 -- do not guess. 4. If you realize during Phase 1 that you lack sufficient knowledge to give a confident answer, say so explicitly. Do not fabricate. 5. Each grilling round must identify at least one new weakness or confirm there are genuinely none left. Repeating the same objection counts as a failure. 6. The final delivered answer must come from Phase 2 output, never from the raw Phase 1 draft. ## Examples ### Example 1: Technical Concept **User Input**: "Explain distributed consensus using Paxos." **Phase 1 Internal Grill** (hidden unless show_cot=true): - "You said Proposer sends a proposal -- but what exactly triggers a Proposer to act? What if two Proposers trigger simultaneously?" - "You mentioned Acceptors 'accept' proposals -- but under what conditions do they reject? You are hiding the actual decision logic behind a label." - "You have not addressed livelock. If Proposers keep pre-empting each other, the system never converges. Your explanation is incomplete." **Phase 2 Feynman Output** (target_audience="5-year-old"): "Imagine a group of friends trying to decide which movie to watch, but they can only talk by passing notes -- and some notes might get lost. One friend writes 'Let's watch Movie A' on several notes and passes them around. The rule is: if more than half the friends agree on the same note, that movie wins. But what if two friends send different movie suggestions at the same time? Then everyone throws away the old notes and starts over with new ones. They keep doing this until more than half agree. The tricky part is making sure they don't keep starting over forever -- so each new round gets a bigger number, and friends always pick the note with the biggest number they've seen." ### Example 2: Code Review **User Input**: "Why should I use dependency injection?" **Phase 1 Internal Grill** (hidden): - "You say it 'improves testability' -- prove it. Show the concrete mechanism." - "You claim it 'reduces coupling' -- coupling between what and what? Be specific." - "Your argument applies equally to any form of parameterization. What makes DI specifically valuable beyond ordinary function arguments?" **Phase 2 Feynman Output** (target_audience="junior developer"): "Think of your code like a kitchen. Right now, your recipe (function) walks to the store to buy its own ingredients (creates its own dependencies). That means: (a) you cannot test the recipe with mock ingredients, (b) if the store changes location, every recipe breaks. Dependency injection says: someone else buys the ingredients and hands them to the recipe. The recipe only says 'I need flour and eggs' without caring where they come from. The concrete benefit: in tests, you hand in fake ingredients; in production, you hand in real ones. Same recipe, zero changes." ## Edge Cases - **Trivial questions** (e.g. "What is 2+2?"): Apply a minimal Phase 1 (single sanity check), then deliver directly. Do not over-complicate obvious answers. - **Opinion-based questions**: Flag that the question is opinion-based in Phase 1. Present multiple perspectives rather than forcing a single answer. - **Multi-part questions**: Split into sub-questions. Apply the full pipeline to each sub-question independently. - **Code generation requests**: Apply Phase 1 to the design decisions, not to syntax. Phase 2 should produce well-commented code with analogies in comments rather than rewriting code in "simple" form.