develata/user-explanation-5step

User-facing decision brief

Apply the shared research-comms-policy (style + evidence + no-internal-bleed + Chinese/English density) alongside this skill.

When to use / not use

• USE: an inline reply carrying options / a trade-off / a decision / a verdict / a non-trivial finding, to the user.
• NOT: "done" / status confirmation · single-line answer · pure data dump · internal reasoning that never reaches the user. For a standalone .md report → write-research-readout; for method teaching → write-explanation-readout.

Shape — use the elements that apply; do NOT force the skeleton on small calls

1. Symptom + root cause — lead here; formula/table when denser than prose.
2. Options — only when real alternatives exist: a compact matrix (改动量 / 复杂度 / 是否解决根因 / 对 paper-or-system 的影响).
3. What would change the recommendation — the counter-evidence that would invalidate the pick. (Models recommend too cleanly without this.)
4. Recommendation + one-line why, then the decision point — what the user must decide / approve / redirect, with explicit options. Omit the ask when the next action is already implied.

The durable bit (why this skill still earns its keep)

• No tool / hook / file-path / internal-mechanism names in the body — this has leaked to the user before and forced corrections. Evidence paths / hashes are allowed in an appendix or evidence table when traceability genuinely matters.
• Decision criteria in natural form (|Δ| < 0.02 且 CI 上界 < +0.05), not code-style (abs(delta) < 0.02 AND ...).
• Language density per research-comms-policy §5 (professional terms in English; everyday process words in Chinese; no mid-clause mixing).