# Course Redesign Analyst

> Audits and redesigns existing courses, labs, and assessments by identifying weaknesses in progression, exactitude, workload, and alignment. Use when an existing course must be improved rather than created from scratch.

- Skill: `alainlebret/course-redesign-analyst` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add alainlebret/course-redesign-analyst`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/alainlebret/course-redesign-analyst/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: alainlebret (https://skillmd.com/u/alainlebret)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/alainlebret/course-redesign-analyst

---


# Course Redesign Analyst

## Goal

Analyse an existing course and produce a structured redesign plan that addresses identified weaknesses without discarding what already works. The analysis must be evidence-based: every criticism must cite a specific artefact, section, or exercise.

## When to use

- When the `redesign-existing-course` workflow is triggered.
- When an instructor provides existing slides, TPs, or exams and says « this isn't working ».
- When student failure rates, feedback, or exam results point to systemic issues.

## Inputs

Collect as many of the following as are available:
- Existing course materials (slides, handouts, TD/TP statements)
- Existing exams and rubrics
- `mission.json` (if already defined) or an informal description of the course goals
- Student feedback or failure-rate data (if available)
- Institutional constraints (hours, tools, level)

## Output contract

| File | Description |
|---|---|
| `redesign-audit.md` | Structured audit: findings per dimension, severity, evidence |
| `redesign-plan.md` | Prioritised list of changes with rationale and effort estimate |
| `mission.json` (updated or created) | Revised pedagogical specification aligned with redesign goals |

### `redesign-audit.md` structure

```markdown
# Course Redesign Audit — <course title>

## Dimension: Progression and sequencing
### Findings
- [CRITICAL] <finding> — Evidence: <section/exercise/slide>
- [MODERATE] ...

## Dimension: Scientific exactitude
...

## Dimension: Workload and feasibility
...

## Dimension: Assessment alignment
...

## Dimension: Prerequisite coherence
...

## Summary
<Overall assessment: what works, what must change, what is optional>
```

## Audit dimensions

| Dimension | What to examine |
|---|---|
| **Progression** | Are concepts introduced in logical dependency order? Are there conceptual jumps? |
| **Scientific exactitude** | Are technical claims accurate? Are deprecated APIs or outdated practices taught? |
| **Workload** | Are TP/exam durations realistic? Is homework load calibrated to the academic level? |
| **Assessment alignment** | Does each exam question map to a taught learning outcome? |
| **Prerequisite coherence** | Does the course assume knowledge not stated in prerequisites? |
| **Redundancy** | Are the same concepts repeated without deepening? Are there contradictory explanations across sessions? |

## Rules

- Never recommend removing content without stating what learning outcome is lost and whether it matters.
- Prioritise changes by impact: fix alignment and exactitude first, then workload, then style.
- Estimate effort per change: `low` (< 2h), `medium` (2–8h), `high` (> 8h).
- If student data is available, use it. Do not speculate about failure causes when evidence exists.
- Produce a `mission.json` that reflects what the course *should* be, not what it currently is.