Home
Resources
Agent Skills
Writing voices
Felix — the insider explainer

Felix — the insider explainer

A blog-writing style skill that makes an AI agent write in the insider-explainer voice of Patrick McKenzie: it takes a process outsiders find baffling and walks through how it really works, one actor at a time, naming what each is rewarded and blamed for, so the odd outcome turns out to be the system working as designed. Long, wry and precise, with jargon defined on first use, footnote-style asides, labelled guesses and the writer's own stake disclosed. 1,800 to 5,000 words. It works on any business topic. The skill gives a fingerprint table, a seven-step build, sentence rules, truth rules that forbid invented inside knowledge, a worked opening and a revision pass.

In the voice of Patrick McKenzie

Updated 6 October 2026 · By Sadeq

When to use it

Write a blog post in Felix's voice: the insider explainer. Take a process outsiders find baffling — how a payment settles, why a refund takes ten days, who actually decides a price — and explain how it really works from the inside: each actor, what they are paid to care about, and why the odd outcome is the system working as designed. Long, wry, precise, with jargon defined on first use, footnote-style asides, honest disclosure of the writer's own stake, and careful separation of what is known from what is guessed. Use when someone asks for a post "in Felix's style", an explainer of how their industry works, a "why does X take so long / cost so much" post, or content that builds trust by showing expertise. Works for any business topic. Do not use it for opinion pieces, short posts, or when the writer has no real inside knowledge.

Complete file

SKILL.md

---
name: felix
description: >
  Write a blog post in Felix's voice: the insider explainer. Take a process
  outsiders find baffling — how a payment settles, why a refund takes ten
  days, who actually decides a price — and explain how it really works
  from the inside: each actor, what they are paid to care about, and why
  the odd outcome is the system working as designed. Long, wry, precise,
  with jargon defined on first use, footnote-style asides, honest
  disclosure of the writer's own stake, and careful separation of what is
  known from what is guessed. Use when someone asks for a post "in Felix's
  style", an explainer of how their industry works, a "why does X take so
  long / cost so much" post, or content that builds trust by showing
  expertise. Works for any business topic. Do not use it for opinion
  pieces, short posts, or when the writer has no real inside knowledge.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: daena-digital
  version: "1.0"
  collection: blog-style-voices
---

# Felix — the insider explainer

Felix knows how the machine works because he has stood inside it. The
post takes something a customer finds confusing or infuriating and walks
through who does what, who pays for what, and why every actor is behaving
sensibly given what they are rewarded for — even when the result looks
absurd from outside. The humour is dry; the facts are exact.

Studied from Patrick McKenzie's essays at Bits about Money. This skill
reproduces his *moves*, never his sentences, titles or phrases.

## When to pick Felix over another voice

- Customers keep asking "why does it work like this?" about the user's
  industry.
- The writer has real inside knowledge: they've worked the process,
  filled in the forms, answered the support tickets.
- The reader is smart and patient, and will trust a business that
  explains its world honestly.

Pick Theo when the reader needs to *do* something step by step. Pick
Silas when the question is strategy — who wins — rather than mechanism.

## The fingerprint

| Trait | Felix does | Felix never does |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 1,800–5,000 words | Under 1,200 — the mechanism needs room |
| Title | Plain, a little playful: names the thing and the puzzle (*"Why your refund takes ten days"*) | Clickbait, numbered lists, hype |
| Opening | A specific confusing event, a common complaint, or a claim someone made publicly, then the promise to explain what is actually happening | Definitions, history lessons up front |
| Actors | Every party named by role — the shop, the processor, the bank, the regulator — and what each is paid or punished for | "The system" as a faceless villain |
| Jargon | Defined in plain words the first time, then used consistently; acronyms expanded | Undefined terms, or avoiding the real term entirely |
| Asides | Footnote-style digressions in brackets or numbered notes for interesting tangents and caveats | Tangents in the main line that lose the thread |
| Humour | Dry and understated: a deadpan aside, a wry heading | Jokes at the customer's expense, sarcasm at individuals |
| Certainty | Precise about what is known; labels speculation ("my guess is", "I believe, but have not confirmed") | Presenting a guess as fact |
| Disclosure | States the writer's own stake: who they work for, what they sell | Hiding a conflict of interest |
| Headings | Several, conversational, each a step in the explanation | One wall of text |
| Sympathy | Fair to every actor, including the ones the reader is angry at; still says plainly when something is wrong | Defending an industry reflexively |
| Ending | What this means for the reader: what they can do, what to expect, or the open question that remains | A pitch or a recap |

## How to build the post

1. **Pick the puzzle.** Ask the user for the question customers actually
   ask, or the complaint they hear most. Write it as one sentence.

2. **Map the actors.** List every party involved, from the customer to
   the back office to any regulator or supplier. For each: what they are
   rewarded for and what they are blamed for. Get these from the user —
   they are the inside knowledge.

3. **Open on the puzzle.** Describe the confusing experience concretely,
   then say plainly that it makes sense once you see who is doing what.

4. **Walk the mechanism in order.** One headed section per stage of the
   process. Introduce each actor as they appear, define each term once,
   and say what they do and why.

5. **Explain the odd outcome.** Show how the surprising result follows
   from each actor doing their job sensibly. This is the turn of the post.

6. **Say where it is genuinely bad.** Being fair is not the same as
   excusing. If a part of the system serves the reader poorly, say so and
   say who could fix it.

7. **Disclose and close.** State the writer's own stake if any, then end
   on what the reader can now do or expect.

## Sentence-level rules

- **Precision over flourish.** "Within two business days" beats "quickly".
- **Mark the edge of your knowledge.** "I don't know the exact figure; it
  is somewhere between X and Y, based on Z."
- **Name the incentive, not the villain.** "The processor is paid per
  transaction and fined per dispute" explains more than "the processor is
  greedy".
- **Keep asides out of the main line.** Put a tangent in a note; let the
  main paragraph keep walking.
- **Dry, not snide.** One understated line of humour per section is
  plenty.
- **Define once, reuse exactly.** Don't call the same thing three names.

## What Felix never licenses

The voice runs on credibility, so it must be earned.

- **No invented inside knowledge.** Processes, timelines, fees and rules
  must come from the user's real experience or a checkable public source
  (a regulation, a published policy, a filing). If unsure, say so in the
  post or leave it out.
- **No invented numbers.** Figures need a source; estimates are labelled
  as estimates with the reasoning shown.
- **No unnamed private parties.** Don't describe a real customer, employer
  or partner in a way that identifies them without permission.
- **No borrowed sentences, titles or phrases** from the writer this voice
  was studied from.

## A short illustration

The opening of a Felix post for a hypothetical payroll company. The
company, the timeline and the actors are invented to show the shape; in
a real post every step must be the user's own knowledge:

> **Why your new hire's first paycheck is late**
>
> Every month someone writes to us, upset that a new employee started on
> the 1st and wasn't paid on the 15th like everyone else. From where they
> sit, the money is right there and somebody just forgot to send it.
>
> Nobody forgot. Four different parties each did exactly what they are
> paid to do, and the delay is what that adds up to.
>
> ## The bank wants to know who it is paying
>
> When an employer adds a new bank account to payroll, the bank that
> holds the employer's money has no idea whether that account belongs to
> a real employee or to someone who has just phished the HR manager's
> password. [This is not a hypothetical worry. It is the single most
> common payroll fraud we see.] So before it sends real money, it sends a
> tiny test deposit — a *prenote*, a zero-dollar or few-cent transfer
> whose only job is to prove the account exists.

Note what it does: opens on a real complaint, promises that the outcome
makes sense, introduces the first actor by what it fears, defines a term
in plain words, and keeps the tangent in brackets.

## Revision pass

1. Is the puzzle stated as a real question customers ask?
2. Is every actor named by role, with what they are rewarded and blamed
   for?
3. Is every term defined once, in plain words, and used the same way after?
4. Is every fact either the user's own knowledge or sourced? Are guesses
   labelled?
5. Does the post say plainly where the system is genuinely bad?
6. Is the writer's stake disclosed?
7. Does the ending tell the reader what to do or expect?

Knowledge base

What we read to learn Patrick McKenzie’s voice

The gift card accountability sinkInvisible intermediaries explained; footnotes with personality; conflict disclosed
Fraud Investigation is Believing Your Lying EyesFrom one case to general mechanisms; declarative headings; deadpan humour
Guys what is ACATSJargon defined inline; how the back office really works; nested asides
Two Americas, one bank branch, and $50,000 cashA charged topic handled by mapping each side's incentives; restraint at the end
A window into modern loan originationA process walked step by step; speculation explicitly labelled
One Regulation E, Two Very Different RegimesA regulation explained through hypotheticals; conversational headings