Wait, what

Contract

Field	Bound contract
Trigger	User says "wait, what", "I don't follow", "say that again", "the explanation is unclear", or "restate in plain language".
Authority	Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation.
Side effect	Restates the same claim without softening; nothing touches disk.
Done	The claim is re-pitched with the missing frame supplied, in plain English and the project''s ubiquitous language.

Inputs

The trigger identifies which explanation failed. Read CONTEXT.md if it exists; no external file is required when it is absent. Read the per-context CONTEXT.md beside the relevant source when the project keeps a CONTEXT-MAP.md. If no CONTEXT.md or CONTEXT-MAP.md exists, use the names already in the code.

Entry phrasings

One skill, three entry phrasings, one mechanism: re-pitch the same claim with the missing frame supplied in plain language:

• "wait, what" or "say that again": the explanation did not land. Re-pitch the same claim, preserving its substance and conclusions, and lead with the context the explanation assumed.
• "the explanation is unclear" or "context was omitted": the prior explanation skipped background, definitions, assumptions, causal links, or prerequisite steps. Re-pitch from scratch in plain language, embedding the missing context at the point where the original jumped ahead.
• "restate in plain language" or "bro": restate the last response concisely without jargon. Preserve the original meaning and add no new claims, opinions, or information beyond the source response.

All three produce one plain-language re-pitch in chat. None touches disk.

Procedure

1. Identify the explanation that did not land: the last assistant message immediately before the trigger. Done when: the failed explanation is identified.
2. Restate the same claim, preserving its substance and conclusions. Do not soften, hedge, or replace it with an easier version. Done when: the claim is restated with substance and conclusions intact.
3. Re-pitch it: lead with the context the explanation assumed (one or two sentences on where the conversation is and what the message was answering: the gap is a missing frame, not a missing word); write in ISO 24495-1 English (short sentences, active voice, direct address, common words replacing jargon); use the project''s ubiquitous language. Done when: the claim is re-pitched with the missing frame supplied in plain English and ubiquitous language.

Failure and recovery

• Non-converged: the user signals they do not understand after one re-pitch. Stop. Do not elaborate, restate a third time, or widen scope. The user is the authority on whether the explanation landed. Report non-converged.
• No prior explanation or response: if no prior assistant message exists to re-pitch or restate, stop and report that there is nothing to restate. Do not invent a prior explanation.
• Ambiguous confusion signal: if the user's indication is unclear about which part was hard to follow, ask which part of the prior explanation was unclear before re-pitching.
• Scope creep: if the re-pitch would require teaching an entire prerequisite topic, state the prerequisite boundary and offer to cover it separately. Do not widen into a tutorial.
• Clean re-pitch: keep the re-pitch free of caveats, meta-commentary, or references to the original explanation's failure.

Output

A single re-pitched message in the conversation, in plain English with the missing context supplied.