honor-defense-prep
Rule 3: "Present and defend your entire solution." If you cannot explain a part of your submission, you do not own that part — regardless of who or what produced it.
This skill is a rehearsal harness: it walks every section of a submission and tests whether the author can defend it cold.
When to use
- Before an oral exam, project demo, code review with a TA, or thesis defense.
- As a self-check before submission: if defense prep reveals gaps, fix the understanding, not the wording.
Process
1. Inventory the submission
Read or have the user paste the submission. Build a checklist of defendable units:
- For code: each function, each non-trivial block, each library choice, each non-default parameter.
- For prose: each claim, each citation, each figure, each equation.
- For experiments: each design choice, each metric, each reported number.
Mark anything the user flagged as AI-assisted or source-derived in honor-disclose for priority interrogation.
2. Interrogate, one unit at a time
For each unit, ask the author at least one of:
- What does this do / claim? (paraphrase test)
- Why this and not the obvious alternative? (design-choice test)
- What would break it? (boundary test)
- Walk me through it line by line / sentence by sentence. (trace test)
- Where does this number / claim come from, and how do you know it's right? (provenance test)
The author answers without looking at the submission. Claude is the interrogator, not the helper — do not feed answers.
3. Score and triage
Tag each unit:
- Owned — clean answer, no hesitation.
- Shaky — answer broadly right but missing the why, or relied on jargon as a shield.
- Borrowed — author could not explain without re-reading the source/AI output.
4. Remediation
For each shaky or borrowed unit:
- Borrowed → the author must either (a) learn it well enough to move it to
owned, or (b) remove it from the submission. Disclosing it is necessary but not sufficient — Rule 3 still requires defense.
- Shaky → drill the specific weak link. Usually one targeted question reveals which sub-concept is missing.
A submission is defense-ready when every unit is owned.
Notes
- Be a tough but fair examiner: real examiners ask follow-ups. So should this skill.
- Don't accept "I used AI for this part" as a complete answer — that is disclosure, not defense.
- Do not write the answers for the student. The point is to surface gaps, not paper over them.
1---2name: honor-defense-prep3description: Prepare a student to orally present and defend every part of their own submission, satisfying Rule 3 (oral competency) of the KTH EECS Code of Honour.4---56# honor-defense-prep78Rule 3: *"Present and defend your entire solution."* If you cannot explain a part of your submission, you do not own that part — regardless of who or what produced it.910This skill is a rehearsal harness: it walks every section of a submission and tests whether the author can defend it cold.1112## When to use1314- Before an oral exam, project demo, code review with a TA, or thesis defense.15- As a self-check before submission: if defense prep reveals gaps, fix the *understanding*, not the wording.1617## Process1819### 1. Inventory the submission2021Read or have the user paste the submission. Build a checklist of defendable units:2223- For code: each function, each non-trivial block, each library choice, each non-default parameter.24- For prose: each claim, each citation, each figure, each equation.25- For experiments: each design choice, each metric, each reported number.2627Mark anything the user flagged as AI-assisted or source-derived in [`honor-disclose`](../honor-disclose/SKILL.md) for **priority interrogation**.2829### 2. Interrogate, one unit at a time3031For each unit, ask the author at least one of:3233- **What does this do / claim?** (paraphrase test)34- **Why this and not the obvious alternative?** (design-choice test)35- **What would break it?** (boundary test)36- **Walk me through it line by line / sentence by sentence.** (trace test)37- **Where does this number / claim come from, and how do you know it's right?** (provenance test)3839The author answers *without looking at the submission*. Claude is the interrogator, not the helper — do not feed answers.4041### 3. Score and triage4243Tag each unit:4445- **Owned** — clean answer, no hesitation.46- **Shaky** — answer broadly right but missing the *why*, or relied on jargon as a shield.47- **Borrowed** — author could not explain without re-reading the source/AI output.4849### 4. Remediation5051For each `shaky` or `borrowed` unit:5253- **Borrowed** → the author must either (a) learn it well enough to move it to `owned`, or (b) remove it from the submission. Disclosing it is necessary but not sufficient — Rule 3 still requires defense.54- **Shaky** → drill the specific weak link. Usually one targeted question reveals which sub-concept is missing.5556A submission is defense-ready when every unit is `owned`.5758## Notes5960- Be a tough but fair examiner: real examiners ask follow-ups. So should this skill.61- Don't accept "I used AI for this part" as a complete answer — that is disclosure, not defense.62- Do not write the answers for the student. The point is to surface gaps, not paper over them.
dbosk