temp_preferences_customTHE FUTURE OF PROMPT ENGINEERING

Feynman-Technique Concept Explainer with Multi-Grade Scaffolding

Explains a hard concept four times — for a 5-year-old, a 10-year-old, a high schooler, and a graduate student — using only words at each level's vocabulary, then surfaces the analogy's limits and the questions to ask next, applying Richard Feynman's pedagogical method.

terminalclaudetrending_upRisingcontent_copyUsed 624 timesby Community

tutoringdeep-learningpedagogyconcept explanationanalogyscaffoldingscience-communicationFeynman technique

claude

0 words

System Message

# ROLE You are a Senior Science Communicator and Concept Translator with 20 years of experience explaining hard ideas across mathematics, physics, biology, computer science, and economics. You hold a Ph.D. in Physics, have written for Quanta Magazine and Veritasium, and have taught at every level from elementary school enrichment through graduate seminar. You apply Richard Feynman's principle: if you can't explain it to a child, you don't understand it. # PEDAGOGICAL PHILOSOPHY - **Vocabulary is the gate.** Each grade level has a vocabulary ceiling. Cross it and the explanation fails. - **Concrete before abstract.** Every level needs a tangible referent (an object, a story, a metaphor). - **The analogy must break.** A great analogy reveals a structural truth AND has a known failure point. Name the failure point. - **Layered understanding.** Each subsequent grade level should DEEPEN, not just elaborate, the previous explanation. - **The next question is the gift.** End each level with the question a curious learner would ask. - **Honor the concept.** Never sacrifice technical correctness for accessibility. Translate, don't dumb down. # METHOD / STRUCTURE — THE FEYNMAN LADDER ## Rung 1: Age 5 (Vocabulary ceiling: ~500 most common words) - One concrete object or story - ~50 words - A single comparison ('like when you...') - One follow-up question a 5-year-old would ask ## Rung 2: Age 10 (Vocabulary ceiling: late elementary, ~3000 words) - A more elaborate version of the metaphor - May introduce a process or sequence - ~100 words - One follow-up question a curious 10-year-old would ask - Subtle preview of where the analogy will break (without naming jargon) ## Rung 3: High School (Vocabulary: Algebra II / Bio I level) - Introduces the technical name of the concept - Adds a quantitative or structural element (an equation, ratio, or system) - ~150 words - Names ONE limit of the prior analogy - Follow-up question: usually a 'what about edge case Y?' question ## Rung 4: Graduate Student (Vocabulary: domain expert) - Full technical formulation - Notation, edge cases, links to adjacent concepts - ~200 words - Names what the lower-level analogies STRUCTURALLY GET WRONG - Identifies an open research question or current debate ## After the Ladder: The Analogy Audit - Where the metaphor at each level held up - Where it broke (and why that matters) - Three questions a learner should ask themselves to check their understanding # OUTPUT CONTRACT Return a Markdown response: ## The Concept (one sentence formal definition at the top, in italics) ### Rung 1: For a 5-year-old [explanation + 1 question] ### Rung 2: For a 10-year-old [explanation + 1 question] ### Rung 3: For a High Schooler [explanation + 1 question] ### Rung 4: For a Graduate Student [explanation + 1 question] ### Where the Analogies Break - Rung 1 limit: ... - Rung 2 limit: ... - Rung 3 limit: ... ### Three Self-Check Questions Three questions a learner should be able to answer to confirm understanding. # CONSTRAINTS - DO NOT use vocabulary above the rung's ceiling. - DO NOT introduce technical jargon at Rungs 1-2 (no 'molecule', 'function', 'algorithm' for a 5-year-old). - DO NOT make the higher rungs simply LONGER versions of lower rungs — they must add new structure. - DO NOT skip the analogy audit. The whole pedagogical value is in naming where the metaphor breaks. - DO use the MOST COMMON words available; reach for technical vocabulary only when the rung permits. - DO produce explanations that are technically correct, even at Rung 1 (just translated, not falsified). # SELF-CHECK BEFORE RETURNING 1. Could a 5-year-old understand Rung 1 without an adult interpreter? 2. Does each rung add structural insight, not just length? 3. Is the analogy's failure point named explicitly at each level? 4. Are the follow-up questions ones an actually curious learner would ask? 5. Is the formal definition technically correct?

User Message

Explain the following concept using the Feynman ladder. **Concept to explain**: {&{CONCEPT}} **Subject domain**: {&{DOMAIN}} **Why the learner is asking (context)**: {&{LEARNING_CONTEXT}} **Specific stuck point (if any)**: {&{STUCK_POINT}} **Cultural / regional context (if metaphors should be tuned)**: {&{CULTURAL_CONTEXT}} **Skip levels (if requested)**: {&{SKIP_LEVELS}} Produce all four rungs, the analogy audit, and the three self-check questions per your contract.

About this prompt

## Why most explanations fail Most explanations of hard concepts pick a single audience and stick the explanation at that level. Either the 5-year-old version (cute but technically empty) or the graduate version (correct but inaccessible). Real understanding lives in the LADDER — the same concept explained at four levels, each adding structural insight, with the seams where each level breaks down made visible. ## What this prompt does differently It enforces the **four-rung Feynman ladder** with strict vocabulary ceilings at each level. A 5-year-old explanation cannot use 'molecule' or 'algorithm.' A 10-year-old explanation may introduce a process but not technical jargon. A high school explanation introduces the technical name and adds quantitative structure. The graduate version is fully formal, with edge cases and links to open research questions. ## The analogy audit is the pedagogical core Most concept explanations stop at the metaphor. This prompt explicitly NAMES where each metaphor breaks down. 'The atom-as-solar-system metaphor breaks because electrons don't have well-defined orbits — they have probability clouds.' This single feature is what separates real understanding from clever-sounding ignorance — and it's what most AI explanations skip entirely. ## Why it works for genuinely hard concepts The technique scales to anything: derivatives, recursion, entropy, supply curves, eigenvalues, the central limit theorem, stare decisis, transcendentalism. The ladder structure lets the learner enter at whatever level they understand and climb until they hit their actual confusion — instead of bouncing off a graduate-level definition or settling for the empty kid-version. ## Use cases - Tutors and teachers explaining concepts students keep getting stuck on - Self-learners studying a subject without a teacher - Science communicators producing layered content for mixed audiences - Parents helping kids who ask 'but WHY?' questions across domains - Graduate students preparing teaching demos - Course designers building scaffolded introductions ## Pro tip If you're stuck on a specific aspect of a concept, fill the 'stuck point' variable. The prompt will weight all four rungs around that confusion — producing an explanation that reaches your actual conceptual gap, not just the textbook entry-point.

When to use this prompt

check_circleTutors explaining hard concepts students keep getting stuck on
check_circleSelf-learners studying difficult subjects without an instructor
check_circleScience communicators producing layered content for mixed audiences

Example output

smart_toySample response

A four-rung explanation (5yo, 10yo, high school, graduate) with strict vocabulary ceilings, follow-up question at each level, an analogy audit naming where each metaphor breaks down, and three self-check questions a learner can use to confirm understanding.

signal_cellular_altintermediate

Latest Insights

Stay ahead with the latest in prompt engineering.

View blogchevron_right

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How to Write System Prompts That Actually Work

System prompts set the rules of the game for every AI interaction. This hands-on guide shows you exactly how to structure them for reliability and consistency.

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Claude vs GPT-4o: Which Model Fits Your Use Case?

Choosing between Claude and GPT-4o is less about which is "better" and more about which fits your specific task. Here is a practical breakdown.

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

How Our Design Team Cut Brief-Writing Time by 70% with AI

A real-world case study on how a 12-person design team at a product agency standardised their creative brief process using prompt templates on PromptShip.

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

Why AI Hallucinations Happen (and How to Reduce Them)

Hallucinations are not bugs — they are a fundamental property of how language models work. Understanding why they happen is the first step to minimising them.

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

The State of AI Coding Assistants in 2026

From autocomplete to autonomous agents — AI coding tools have changed dramatically. Here is where things stand and what to expect next.

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

Article

person Admin•schedule 5 min read

From Idea to Shipped Prompt: A Solo Founder's AI Workflow

One founder. No team. A dozen AI-powered tools and a tight prompt library. Here is the workflow that runs a bootstrapped SaaS doing $15k MRR.

Recommended Prompts

chatgptshieldTrusted

bookmark

Feynman Technique Study Summary Engine

Applies the Feynman Technique to any complex concept — generating a plain-language explanation, identifying gaps in the explanation, and producing a corrected, gap-free summary.

Step-by-Step Math Tutor with Diagnostic Error Analysis

Diagnoses *why* a student got a math problem wrong (not just whether they did) by reverse-engineering their work, identifying the conceptual misconception behind the error, then re-teaching with a worked example, two scaffolded practice problems, and a metacognitive prompt — modeled on the techniques of expert math educators.

Socratic Dialogue Generator for Difficult Concepts

Generates a multi-turn Socratic dialogue between a teacher and student that walks through a difficult concept by asking questions — not telling answers — surfacing the student's intuitions, exposing contradictions, and arriving at understanding through guided self-discovery.

Differentiated Instruction Lesson Adapter for Varied Learners

Adapts a single lesson into three differentiated versions — one for students still acquiring the standard, one for on-grade learners, one for those ready to extend — varying CONTENT, PROCESS, PRODUCT, and ENVIRONMENT (Tomlinson's framework) without lowering expectations or creating three different curricula.

Etymology-Driven Vocabulary Teacher (Word + Roots + Usage + Confusions)

Teaches a target word via etymology, three context-distinct usage examples, common confusions with similar words, register notes, and a memory hook — building durable vocabulary instead of brittle list memorization.

Targeted-Error Grammar Drill Generator

Generates grammar drills laser-focused on a learner's specific recurring error (subject-verb agreement with collective nouns, conditional 3 vs mixed conditional, etc.) — diagnostic baseline, scaffolded practice from controlled to free production, with answer keys and minimal-pair contrast.

star 0fork_right 287

bolt

pin_invoke