# Complete Assignment > Run the reasoning review gate for a completed assignment. Asks 2-3 Reasoning Review Prompts from COURSE.md, verifies genuine understanding, and only marks the assignment complete if the learner demonstrates conceptual grasp. Use when a learner finishes an assignment and is ready for verification. - Skill: `ishands/complete-assignment` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add ishands/complete-assignment` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/ishands/complete-assignment/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: ishands (https://skillmd.com/u/ishands) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/ishands/complete-assignment --- ## Purpose This skill is the gate between "the work is done" and "the assignment is complete." A correct result is necessary but not sufficient — the learner must demonstrate they understand what they built and why. The reasoning review serves two functions: - **Verification** — confirm the learner has genuine conceptual grasp, not just a working output. - **Final teaching moment** — surface latent gotchas, edge cases, and failure modes the learner hasn't encountered yet. The review is not an interrogation; it is the last opportunity to deepen understanding before moving on. --- ## Before You Start Read these files — they must be in your context before continuing: 1. The active `COURSE.md` — specifically the Reasoning Review Prompts for the assignment being completed 2. `progress//learner-context.md` — the learner's Dreyfus level and background in this subject 3. `core/meta/TUTOR-CONTRACT.md` §7 — the reasoning review protocol --- ## Procedure ### Step 1 — Identify the assignment Read `progress//journal.md`. Find the **Progress Tracker** section. Look for the first unchecked assignment (`- [ ]`). - **If the learner named a specific assignment** — confirm it matches the next unchecked item. If it doesn't, ask: "Your next unchecked assignment is [X]. Did you mean that one, or are you completing [Y] out of order?" - **If the learner didn't specify** — assume the first unchecked assignment. Confirm: "It looks like you've finished [title]. Ready for the reasoning review?" - **If all assignments are already checked** — tell the learner the course is fully complete. There is nothing to mark. ### Step 2 — Load context Read the following to calibrate the review: 1. **COURSE.md** — find the Reasoning Review Prompts for this assignment. These are the questions you will ask. 2. **`progress//learner-context.md`** — note the learner's self-declared Dreyfus level in this subject and their prior skills. This determines probe depth: - **Novice/Beginner** — probe for rules and heuristics. "When would you use this pattern?" "What's the rule of thumb here?" - **Competent+** — probe for nuance and trade-offs. "Where does this break down?" "What would you change if the constraints shifted?" 3. **`profile/PROFILE.md`** (if it exists) — cross-reference the learner's broader background. Their mental models from other domains may inform better probing questions. ### Step 3 — Run the reasoning review Ask 2–3 Reasoning Review Prompts from COURSE.md. One prompt at a time — wait for the learner's response before asking the next. For each prompt: - Require explanation in the learner's own words. Not recitation from documentation, not code snippets, not rote recall. - Push for edge cases: "Where does this pattern break down?" - Push for trade-offs: "Why this approach instead of the alternative?" - Calibrate depth to the learner's Dreyfus level (Step 2). Do not rush through the prompts. Each answer deserves a response — acknowledge what's correct, probe what's vague, correct what's wrong. ### Step 4 — Evaluate understanding **If understanding is shallow:** - Do not mark the assignment complete. - Identify the specific gap: "Your explanation of [X] suggests you might be thinking of it as [Y]. That's a common mental model but it breaks when [Z]." - Tell the learner what to work on: "Spend some time with [concept]. Try [specific exercise or re-reading]. When you're ready, invoke this skill again." - **Exit.** Do not loop or re-ask. The learner needs time to work through the gap, not another question in the same sitting. **If understanding is strong:** - Use the review as a final teaching moment (Tutor Contract §7.3). Surface one latent gotcha or failure mode the learner hasn't encountered: "You've explained this correctly. What happens when [edge case]? Does your approach still hold?" - This is a gift, not a trap. If the learner doesn't know, briefly explain — they've earned it. Don't turn the teaching moment into another gate. - Proceed to Step 5. ### Step 5 — Update the journal Make two changes to `progress//journal.md`: **1. Progress Tracker** — change the assignment's checkbox: ``` - [x] **Assignment N: Title** — completed YYYY-MM-DD ``` Use today's date. **2. Completion Marker** — add a section at the end of the assignment's journal content (after What Clicked, or after the last populated section): ```markdown ## Assignment N: Title — Completed YYYY-MM-DD **Key takeaway:** {the learner's answer — see below} ``` Ask the learner: "What was the single most important thing you learned from this assignment?" Use their answer as the key takeaway. Write it in the learner's voice, not yours. ### Step 6 — Commit Present the commit message to the learner: ``` progress: complete ``` Wait for the learner to commit. --- ## Notes - **This is a conversation, not an exam.** The reasoning review should feel like a discussion between a mentor and a learner who just finished something meaningful. Acknowledge effort. Be genuinely curious about their reasoning. - **Don't rubber-stamp.** "I understand" is not evidence of understanding. Neither is restating the documentation. Push for the learner's own mental model — how they think about it, not how the textbook describes it. **[Anti-pattern 5]** - **Don't interrogate.** If the learner gives a correct but brief answer, a light follow-up probe is fine. Demanding exhaustive explanations for every concept turns the review into a chore. Two or three well-chosen prompts are enough. - **Calibration matters.** A novice who can articulate the basic rule correctly has demonstrated understanding at their level. Don't demand expert-level nuance from a beginner. Conversely, don't let an experienced learner pass with surface-level answers. - **The key takeaway is the learner's, not the tutor's.** Resist the urge to rewrite or "improve" their answer. If it's vague, ask them to sharpen it. But the words should be theirs. --- ## Reference - Reasoning review protocol: `core/meta/TUTOR-CONTRACT.md` §7 - Learning principles (P8 — Verify Understanding, Not Output): `core/meta/PRINCIPLES.md` - Journal template and completion marker format: `.agents/skills/core/start-course/references/JOURNAL-TEMPLATE.md` - Tech spec §6.3.2: full skill specification