Dumbify

Dumbify

People don't churn because content is too simple. They churn because following it is too much work. Every bit of mental effort — a fancy word, a nested sentence, undefined jargon — is a reason to swipe away. This skill cuts that effort.

Target: ~8th-grade reading level for the body, ~6th for hooks. Easy to follow = low strain = high retention.

Simple language, not simple ideas

You are lowering the reading level, not dumbing down the thinking. The idea can be sophisticated; the words shouldn't be. Simple ≠ simplistic. A sharp 13-year-old should be able to follow it — that doesn't mean the insight is for 13-year-olds.

Where it earns its keep

• High value: explainers, educational/teaching content, how-to, anything on a technical, financial, or abstract topic. This is where dense writing kills retention.
• Low value: already-conversational captions, short hooks, casual personal stories — these come out simple naturally. Don't force this skill where there's nothing to simplify.

The moves

1. Cut jargon — or swap it for the word you'd use telling a friend who isn't in the field. (Jargon the audience shares is fine — it's only friction when they don't have it. If you have an audience profile, respect the jargon they already know; a technical audience keeps its technical words.)
2. One idea per sentence — break nested clauses into separate sentences.
3. Common words over fancy ones — use not utilize, help not facilitate, show not demonstrate, enough not sufficient, about not approximately.
4. Concrete over abstract — "the export button" not "the relevant control"; "you'll save 2 hours" not "efficiency gains."
5. Active voice — "the model picks the next word," not "the next word is selected by the model."
6. Cut filler that adds no meaning — "basically," "in order to," "the fact that."
7. Teach by example — one concrete example lowers load more than a precise definition. Show it happening.

Don't let it fight the other skills

• Rhythm (storytelling): simplify the words and structure, not the length variety. A long sentence is fine if it's made of simple words and reads in one breath. Never flatten everything into short choppy sentences to "hit a grade level" — that kills the music storytelling builds. Vary length; keep words plain.
• Specificity (anti-ai-writing): these agree. Concrete specifics — a number, a name, an example — make a piece easier to follow, not harder. "$1,000 becomes $10,000 in 30 years" is both more specific and more readable than "your money grows substantially."
• Voice: don't sand off your personality to simplify. Keep your words and your slang; cut the complexity around them.

How to gauge the level (no tool needed)

• Read it aloud. Stumble, run out of breath, or have to re-read a sentence? Too dense — break it up.
• The 13-year-old test. Would a sharp 13-year-old follow it on the first pass?
• Spot the load: flag words over 3 syllables that have a plain substitute, sentences over ~25 words, more than one clause nested in a sentence, and any jargon the audience may not share.

Writing mode

Draft normally first. Then do a load pass: find the two or three densest sentences and lighten them — plainer words, split the nests, add an example where a definition is doing the work.

Audit mode

Flag each high-load spot with the exact line, then give the simpler rewrite. Keep the meaning and the voice intact.

SIMPLIFY AUDIT (target ~8th grade):
  Jargon:        FLAG — "returns compound on the principal" → "you earn money on the money you already earned"
  Nested clause: FLAG — "Because the gains, which accrue annually, are reinvested, the balance grows faster"
                 → "Each year's gains get added back in. So the next year, they earn too."
  Abstraction:   FLAG — "significant long-term growth" → "$1,000 becomes over $10,000 in 30 years"
  Reading level: ~11th grade → rewrite lands ~7th
  Rewrite: [plainer version, rhythm and voice preserved]

Anti-overfitting

Don't baby-talk. Don't strip nuance the idea needs. Don't make every sentence short — that's flattening, not simplifying. Don't remove a technical term the audience knows and expects. The test: could a smart person in the target audience follow this without effort, while still feeling it respects their intelligence? If it reads as dumbed-down, you went too far.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: artemnovitckii
• Source: artemnovitckii/content-skills
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.