Chapter Evaluator Skill
Evaluate educational chapters through dual lenses: the Student Experience (engagement, clarity, confidence) and the Teacher Perspective (pedagogy, objectives, assessment). Output structured analysis with ratings, gaps, and actionable improvements.
When to Use
- Analyzing a chapter's overall quality before publication
- Identifying why content "feels off" (too short, boring, disconnected)
- Planning improvements to existing chapters
- Comparing chapters against quality standards
- User asks to "evaluate", "review", "analyze", or "assess" a chapter
Evaluation Process
Step 1: Gather Chapter Content
Read all lesson files in the chapter directory:
ls -la <chapter-path>/*.md | grep -v summary | grep -v README | grep -v quiz
For each lesson file, extract:
- YAML frontmatter (learning objectives, cognitive load, skills, layer)
- Word count
- Section structure (headings)
- Try With AI prompts
- Hands-on exercises
- Code examples
Step 2: Student Perspective Analysis
Evaluate as a beginner encountering this content for the first time.
2.1 Engagement Score (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Compelling hook, real-world relevance clear, I want to keep reading |
| 7-8 |
Interesting enough, some engaging moments, minor dry spots |
| 5-6 |
Functional but forgettable, reads like documentation |
| 3-4 |
Boring, walls of text, no compelling reason to continue |
| 1-2 |
Would abandon after first section |
Check for:
- Opening hook (does first paragraph grab attention?)
- Real-world scenarios (why does this matter to ME?)
- Story/narrative flow vs disconnected facts
- Visual breaks (diagrams, tables, code blocks)
- Pacing variety (concept → hands-on → concept)
2.2 Length Assessment
| Verdict |
Criteria |
| Too Short |
Missing examples, concepts unexplained, abrupt endings, "I don't understand" |
| Just Right |
Each concept has sufficient depth, examples clarify, natural flow |
| Too Long |
Repetitive explanations, over-elaborated points, could cut 30%+ |
Word count benchmarks:
- Conceptual lesson: 1,000-1,400 words
- Hands-on lesson: 1,200-1,600 words
- Installation/setup: 800-1,200 words (focused)
- Capstone: 1,400-1,800 words
2.3 Clarity Score (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Crystal clear, no re-reading needed, "aha" moments |
| 7-8 |
Mostly clear, occasional re-read for complex parts |
| 5-6 |
Understandable with effort, some confusing sections |
| 3-4 |
Frequently confused, missing context, jargon unexplained |
| 1-2 |
Cannot follow, assumes knowledge I don't have |
Check for:
- Jargon introduced before defined
- Logical flow between paragraphs
- Transitions between sections
- Prerequisites assumed vs stated
2.4 Hands-On Effectiveness (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Clear steps, achievable, builds confidence, "I did it!" |
| 7-8 |
Mostly clear, minor ambiguity, successful completion likely |
| 5-6 |
Workable but confusing steps, may need to troubleshoot |
| 3-4 |
Missing steps, unclear what to do, likely to get stuck |
| 1-2 |
Cannot complete without external help |
Check for:
- Step-by-step instructions (numbered, clear)
- Expected output/results shown
- Troubleshooting guidance
- Connection to concepts just learned
2.5 Progression Clarity (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Clear path from start to mastery, each lesson builds on previous |
| 7-8 |
Generally progressive, minor jumps between lessons |
| 5-6 |
Some logical progression, noticeable gaps |
| 3-4 |
Disconnected lessons, unclear how they relate |
| 1-2 |
Random ordering, no clear learning path |
Check for:
- Opening connections ("In Lesson N-1, you learned X. Now...")
- Running example threaded through chapter
- Skills building on each other
- Clear "what's next" at lesson end
2.6 Confidence Score (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
"I can definitely do this now" - ready to apply independently |
| 7-8 |
"I mostly understand and could figure out the rest" |
| 5-6 |
"I kind of get it but would need help applying it" |
| 3-4 |
"I'm confused about when/how to use this" |
| 1-2 |
"I have no idea what I just read" |
Check for:
- Practice opportunities before moving on
- Verification steps ("you should see X")
- Real-world application examples
- "Try it yourself" prompts
Step 3: Teacher Perspective Analysis
Evaluate as an instructional designer assessing pedagogical soundness.
3.1 Learning Objectives Quality (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
SMART objectives, measurable, aligned to content and assessment |
| 7-8 |
Clear objectives, mostly measurable, good alignment |
| 5-6 |
Objectives present but vague or partially aligned |
| 3-4 |
Weak objectives, not measurable, poor alignment |
| 1-2 |
Missing or meaningless objectives |
Check for:
- Bloom's taxonomy verb alignment (Remember → Create)
- Measurable criteria ("can explain", "can create", "can distinguish")
- Assessment method specified
- Objectives actually taught in lesson content
3.2 Cognitive Load Management (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Appropriate concepts for level, well-scaffolded, no overload |
| 7-8 |
Generally appropriate, minor overload moments |
| 5-6 |
Some cognitive overload, too many concepts at once |
| 3-4 |
Significant overload, concepts piled without consolidation |
| 1-2 |
Overwhelming, no chance of retention |
Benchmarks by proficiency:
- A1-A2: 3-5 new concepts per lesson
- B1-B2: 5-7 new concepts per lesson
- C1-C2: 7-10 new concepts per lesson
Check for:
- New concepts counted in frontmatter
- Concepts introduced one at a time
- Practice before new concept introduced
- Chunking of complex procedures
3.3 Scaffolding Quality (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Perfect progression, each concept builds on previous, no gaps |
| 7-8 |
Good scaffolding, minor jumps that students can bridge |
| 5-6 |
Some scaffolding gaps, requires prior knowledge not taught |
| 3-4 |
Significant gaps, assumes knowledge not in prerequisites |
| 1-2 |
No scaffolding, concepts appear randomly |
Check for:
- Prerequisites listed and actually prerequisite
- Concepts introduced before used
- Increasing complexity curve
- Prior knowledge activated before new content
3.4 Pedagogical Layer Appropriateness (1-10)
| Layer |
Expected Characteristics |
| L1 (Foundation) |
Manual-first, understand before automate, no AI shortcuts |
| L2 (Collaboration) |
AI as Teacher/Student/Co-Worker, learning through interaction |
| L3 (Intelligence) |
Pattern recognition, creating reusable intelligence (skills/subagents) |
| L4 (Orchestration) |
Capstone, combining components, spec-driven development |
Check for:
- Layer declared in frontmatter
- Content matches layer expectations
- Layer progression through chapter (L1 → L2 → L3 → L4)
- No premature automation (L3 content in early lessons)
3.5 Try With AI Effectiveness (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Prompts directly extend lesson, specific, build skills |
| 7-8 |
Good prompts, mostly connected to content |
| 5-6 |
Generic prompts, loosely connected |
| 3-4 |
Copy-paste prompts, don't match lesson |
| 1-2 |
Missing or irrelevant prompts |
Check for:
- 2-3 prompts per lesson (not 1, not 5+)
- Prompts reference lesson content specifically
- Progressive difficulty across prompts
- "What you're learning" explanations present
3.6 Assessment/Verification Quality (1-10)
| Score |
Criteria |
| 9-10 |
Clear verification at each step, students know if they succeeded |
| 7-8 |
Good verification for most exercises |
| 5-6 |
Some verification, students may be unsure of success |
| 3-4 |
Weak verification, students can't tell if they're on track |
| 1-2 |
No verification, students have no idea if they succeeded |
Check for:
- "Expected output" shown for commands
- "You should see X" confirmations
- Error states explained
- End-of-lesson checkpoint
Step 4: Gap Analysis
After scoring, identify specific missing elements:
Content Gaps
- Missing examples (concept taught but not demonstrated)
- Missing hands-on (theory without practice)
- Missing "why" (what but not why it matters)
- Missing troubleshooting (happy path only)
- Missing transitions (lessons don't connect)
Structural Gaps
- Missing opening hook
- Missing running example continuity
- Missing "What's Next" closure
- Missing visual elements (all text, no diagrams/tables)
- Missing code examples for technical content
Pedagogical Gaps
- Objectives not assessed
- Cognitive overload unaddressed
- Layer mismatch (content doesn't match declared layer)
- Prerequisites not actually prerequisite
- Try With AI prompts disconnected from content
Step 5: Generate Improvement Recommendations
For each gap, provide:
- Problem: What's missing or wrong
- Impact: How it affects learning (high/medium/low)
- Fix: Specific action to address
- Effort: Estimated work (low: <30min, medium: 30-90min, high: >90min)
- Priority: 1 (critical), 2 (important), 3 (nice-to-have)
Output Format
Generate analysis in this structure:
# Chapter Evaluation: [Chapter Name]
## Executive Summary
[1 paragraph: Overall quality assessment, key strengths, critical issues, recommendation]
## Student Analysis
### Scores
| Dimension | Score | Verdict |
|-----------|-------|---------|
| Engagement | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Length | [Short/Right/Long] | [One-line summary] |
| Clarity | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Hands-On | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Progression | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Confidence | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
**Overall Student Experience**: X/10
### Detailed Findings
[Specific observations per dimension with examples from content]
### Student Pain Points
1. [Specific issue from student perspective]
2. [Specific issue from student perspective]
...
## Teacher Analysis
### Scores
| Dimension | Score | Verdict |
|-----------|-------|---------|
| Learning Objectives | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Cognitive Load | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Scaffolding | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Layer Appropriateness | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Try With AI | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
| Assessment | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
**Overall Pedagogical Quality**: X/10
### Detailed Findings
[Specific observations per dimension with examples from content]
### Pedagogical Concerns
1. [Specific issue from teacher perspective]
2. [Specific issue from teacher perspective]
...
## Gap Analysis
### Content Gaps
| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
|-----|-----------|--------|
| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
...
### Structural Gaps
| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
|-----|-----------|--------|
| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
...
### Pedagogical Gaps
| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
|-----|-----------|--------|
| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
...
## Improvement Recommendations
### Priority 1 (Critical)
| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
...
### Priority 2 (Important)
| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
...
### Priority 3 (Nice-to-Have)
| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
...
## Summary Metrics
| Metric | Value |
|--------|-------|
| Total Lessons | X |
| Average Word Count | X |
| Student Score | X/10 |
| Teacher Score | X/10 |
| Overall Score | X/10 |
| Critical Issues | X |
| Estimated Fix Time | X hours |
Quality Reference
Compare evaluated chapters against high-quality reference lessons. The skill should automatically identify and read a reference lesson from Part 1 or Part 6 for comparison when available.
Reference lesson patterns to look for:
01-agent-factory-paradigm/01-digital-fte-revolution.md
33-introduction-to-ai-agents/01-what-is-an-ai-agent.md
Resources
references/
See references/ for detailed rubrics:
student-rubric.md - Detailed student perspective evaluation criteria
teacher-rubric.md - Detailed teacher perspective evaluation criteria
word-count-benchmarks.md - Word count guidelines by lesson type
1---2name: chapter-evaluator3description: Evaluate educational chapters from dual student and teacher perspectives. This skill should be used when analyzing chapter quality, identifying content gaps, or planning chapter improvements. Reads all lessons in a chapter directory and provides structured analysis with ratings, gap identification, and prioritized recommendations.4---5
6# Chapter Evaluator Skill
7
8Evaluate educational chapters through dual lenses: the **Student Experience** (engagement, clarity, confidence) and the **Teacher Perspective** (pedagogy, objectives, assessment). Output structured analysis with ratings, gaps, and actionable improvements.
9
10## When to Use
11
12- Analyzing a chapter's overall quality before publication
13- Identifying why content "feels off" (too short, boring, disconnected)
14- Planning improvements to existing chapters
15- Comparing chapters against quality standards
16- User asks to "evaluate", "review", "analyze", or "assess" a chapter
17
18## Evaluation Process
19
20### Step 1: Gather Chapter Content
21
22Read all lesson files in the chapter directory:
23
24```bash
25ls -la <chapter-path>/*.md | grep -v summary | grep -v README | grep -v quiz
26```
27
28For each lesson file, extract:
29- YAML frontmatter (learning objectives, cognitive load, skills, layer)
30- Word count
31- Section structure (headings)
32- Try With AI prompts
33- Hands-on exercises
34- Code examples
35
36### Step 2: Student Perspective Analysis
37
38Evaluate as a beginner encountering this content for the first time.
39
40#### 2.1 Engagement Score (1-10)
41
42| Score | Criteria |
43|-------|----------|
44| 9-10 | Compelling hook, real-world relevance clear, I want to keep reading |
45| 7-8 | Interesting enough, some engaging moments, minor dry spots |
46| 5-6 | Functional but forgettable, reads like documentation |
47| 3-4 | Boring, walls of text, no compelling reason to continue |
48| 1-2 | Would abandon after first section |
49
50**Check for:**
51- Opening hook (does first paragraph grab attention?)
52- Real-world scenarios (why does this matter to ME?)
53- Story/narrative flow vs disconnected facts
54- Visual breaks (diagrams, tables, code blocks)
55- Pacing variety (concept → hands-on → concept)
56
57#### 2.2 Length Assessment
58
59| Verdict | Criteria |
60|---------|----------|
61| Too Short | Missing examples, concepts unexplained, abrupt endings, "I don't understand" |
62| Just Right | Each concept has sufficient depth, examples clarify, natural flow |
63| Too Long | Repetitive explanations, over-elaborated points, could cut 30%+ |
64
65**Word count benchmarks:**
66- Conceptual lesson: 1,000-1,400 words
67- Hands-on lesson: 1,200-1,600 words
68- Installation/setup: 800-1,200 words (focused)
69- Capstone: 1,400-1,800 words
70
71#### 2.3 Clarity Score (1-10)
72
73| Score | Criteria |
74|-------|----------|
75| 9-10 | Crystal clear, no re-reading needed, "aha" moments |
76| 7-8 | Mostly clear, occasional re-read for complex parts |
77| 5-6 | Understandable with effort, some confusing sections |
78| 3-4 | Frequently confused, missing context, jargon unexplained |
79| 1-2 | Cannot follow, assumes knowledge I don't have |
80
81**Check for:**
82- Jargon introduced before defined
83- Logical flow between paragraphs
84- Transitions between sections
85- Prerequisites assumed vs stated
86
87#### 2.4 Hands-On Effectiveness (1-10)
88
89| Score | Criteria |
90|-------|----------|
91| 9-10 | Clear steps, achievable, builds confidence, "I did it!" |
92| 7-8 | Mostly clear, minor ambiguity, successful completion likely |
93| 5-6 | Workable but confusing steps, may need to troubleshoot |
94| 3-4 | Missing steps, unclear what to do, likely to get stuck |
95| 1-2 | Cannot complete without external help |
96
97**Check for:**
98- Step-by-step instructions (numbered, clear)
99- Expected output/results shown
100- Troubleshooting guidance
101- Connection to concepts just learned
102
103#### 2.5 Progression Clarity (1-10)
104
105| Score | Criteria |
106|-------|----------|
107| 9-10 | Clear path from start to mastery, each lesson builds on previous |
108| 7-8 | Generally progressive, minor jumps between lessons |
109| 5-6 | Some logical progression, noticeable gaps |
110| 3-4 | Disconnected lessons, unclear how they relate |
111| 1-2 | Random ordering, no clear learning path |
112
113**Check for:**
114- Opening connections ("In Lesson N-1, you learned X. Now...")
115- Running example threaded through chapter
116- Skills building on each other
117- Clear "what's next" at lesson end
118
119#### 2.6 Confidence Score (1-10)
120
121| Score | Criteria |
122|-------|----------|
123| 9-10 | "I can definitely do this now" - ready to apply independently |
124| 7-8 | "I mostly understand and could figure out the rest" |
125| 5-6 | "I kind of get it but would need help applying it" |
126| 3-4 | "I'm confused about when/how to use this" |
127| 1-2 | "I have no idea what I just read" |
128
129**Check for:**
130- Practice opportunities before moving on
131- Verification steps ("you should see X")
132- Real-world application examples
133- "Try it yourself" prompts
134
135### Step 3: Teacher Perspective Analysis
136
137Evaluate as an instructional designer assessing pedagogical soundness.
138
139#### 3.1 Learning Objectives Quality (1-10)
140
141| Score | Criteria |
142|-------|----------|
143| 9-10 | SMART objectives, measurable, aligned to content and assessment |
144| 7-8 | Clear objectives, mostly measurable, good alignment |
145| 5-6 | Objectives present but vague or partially aligned |
146| 3-4 | Weak objectives, not measurable, poor alignment |
147| 1-2 | Missing or meaningless objectives |
148
149**Check for:**
150- Bloom's taxonomy verb alignment (Remember → Create)
151- Measurable criteria ("can explain", "can create", "can distinguish")
152- Assessment method specified
153- Objectives actually taught in lesson content
154
155#### 3.2 Cognitive Load Management (1-10)
156
157| Score | Criteria |
158|-------|----------|
159| 9-10 | Appropriate concepts for level, well-scaffolded, no overload |
160| 7-8 | Generally appropriate, minor overload moments |
161| 5-6 | Some cognitive overload, too many concepts at once |
162| 3-4 | Significant overload, concepts piled without consolidation |
163| 1-2 | Overwhelming, no chance of retention |
164
165**Benchmarks by proficiency:**
166- A1-A2: 3-5 new concepts per lesson
167- B1-B2: 5-7 new concepts per lesson
168- C1-C2: 7-10 new concepts per lesson
169
170**Check for:**
171- New concepts counted in frontmatter
172- Concepts introduced one at a time
173- Practice before new concept introduced
174- Chunking of complex procedures
175
176#### 3.3 Scaffolding Quality (1-10)
177
178| Score | Criteria |
179|-------|----------|
180| 9-10 | Perfect progression, each concept builds on previous, no gaps |
181| 7-8 | Good scaffolding, minor jumps that students can bridge |
182| 5-6 | Some scaffolding gaps, requires prior knowledge not taught |
183| 3-4 | Significant gaps, assumes knowledge not in prerequisites |
184| 1-2 | No scaffolding, concepts appear randomly |
185
186**Check for:**
187- Prerequisites listed and actually prerequisite
188- Concepts introduced before used
189- Increasing complexity curve
190- Prior knowledge activated before new content
191
192#### 3.4 Pedagogical Layer Appropriateness (1-10)
193
194| Layer | Expected Characteristics |
195|-------|-------------------------|
196| L1 (Foundation) | Manual-first, understand before automate, no AI shortcuts |
197| L2 (Collaboration) | AI as Teacher/Student/Co-Worker, learning through interaction |
198| L3 (Intelligence) | Pattern recognition, creating reusable intelligence (skills/subagents) |
199| L4 (Orchestration) | Capstone, combining components, spec-driven development |
200
201**Check for:**
202- Layer declared in frontmatter
203- Content matches layer expectations
204- Layer progression through chapter (L1 → L2 → L3 → L4)
205- No premature automation (L3 content in early lessons)
206
207#### 3.5 Try With AI Effectiveness (1-10)
208
209| Score | Criteria |
210|-------|----------|
211| 9-10 | Prompts directly extend lesson, specific, build skills |
212| 7-8 | Good prompts, mostly connected to content |
213| 5-6 | Generic prompts, loosely connected |
214| 3-4 | Copy-paste prompts, don't match lesson |
215| 1-2 | Missing or irrelevant prompts |
216
217**Check for:**
218- 2-3 prompts per lesson (not 1, not 5+)
219- Prompts reference lesson content specifically
220- Progressive difficulty across prompts
221- "What you're learning" explanations present
222
223#### 3.6 Assessment/Verification Quality (1-10)
224
225| Score | Criteria |
226|-------|----------|
227| 9-10 | Clear verification at each step, students know if they succeeded |
228| 7-8 | Good verification for most exercises |
229| 5-6 | Some verification, students may be unsure of success |
230| 3-4 | Weak verification, students can't tell if they're on track |
231| 1-2 | No verification, students have no idea if they succeeded |
232
233**Check for:**
234- "Expected output" shown for commands
235- "You should see X" confirmations
236- Error states explained
237- End-of-lesson checkpoint
238
239### Step 4: Gap Analysis
240
241After scoring, identify specific missing elements:
242
243#### Content Gaps
244- Missing examples (concept taught but not demonstrated)
245- Missing hands-on (theory without practice)
246- Missing "why" (what but not why it matters)
247- Missing troubleshooting (happy path only)
248- Missing transitions (lessons don't connect)
249
250#### Structural Gaps
251- Missing opening hook
252- Missing running example continuity
253- Missing "What's Next" closure
254- Missing visual elements (all text, no diagrams/tables)
255- Missing code examples for technical content
256
257#### Pedagogical Gaps
258- Objectives not assessed
259- Cognitive overload unaddressed
260- Layer mismatch (content doesn't match declared layer)
261- Prerequisites not actually prerequisite
262- Try With AI prompts disconnected from content
263
264### Step 5: Generate Improvement Recommendations
265
266For each gap, provide:
267
2681. **Problem**: What's missing or wrong
2692. **Impact**: How it affects learning (high/medium/low)
2703. **Fix**: Specific action to address
2714. **Effort**: Estimated work (low: <30min, medium: 30-90min, high: >90min)
2725. **Priority**: 1 (critical), 2 (important), 3 (nice-to-have)
273
274## Output Format
275
276Generate analysis in this structure:
277
278```markdown
279# Chapter Evaluation: [Chapter Name]
280
281## Executive Summary
282
283[1 paragraph: Overall quality assessment, key strengths, critical issues, recommendation]
284
285## Student Analysis
286
287### Scores
288
289| Dimension | Score | Verdict |
290|-----------|-------|---------|
291| Engagement | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
292| Length | [Short/Right/Long] | [One-line summary] |
293| Clarity | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
294| Hands-On | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
295| Progression | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
296| Confidence | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
297
298**Overall Student Experience**: X/10
299
300### Detailed Findings
301
302[Specific observations per dimension with examples from content]
303
304### Student Pain Points
305
3061. [Specific issue from student perspective]
3072. [Specific issue from student perspective]
308...
309
310## Teacher Analysis
311
312### Scores
313
314| Dimension | Score | Verdict |
315|-----------|-------|---------|
316| Learning Objectives | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
317| Cognitive Load | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
318| Scaffolding | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
319| Layer Appropriateness | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
320| Try With AI | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
321| Assessment | X/10 | [One-line summary] |
322
323**Overall Pedagogical Quality**: X/10
324
325### Detailed Findings
326
327[Specific observations per dimension with examples from content]
328
329### Pedagogical Concerns
330
3311. [Specific issue from teacher perspective]
3322. [Specific issue from teacher perspective]
333...
334
335## Gap Analysis
336
337### Content Gaps
338
339| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
340|-----|-----------|--------|
341| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
342...
343
344### Structural Gaps
345
346| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
347|-----|-----------|--------|
348| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
349...
350
351### Pedagogical Gaps
352
353| Gap | Lesson(s) | Impact |
354|-----|-----------|--------|
355| [Missing element] | L0X | High/Med/Low |
356...
357
358## Improvement Recommendations
359
360### Priority 1 (Critical)
361
362| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
363|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
364| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
365...
366
367### Priority 2 (Important)
368
369| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
370|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
371| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
372...
373
374### Priority 3 (Nice-to-Have)
375
376| # | Problem | Fix | Effort | Lesson(s) |
377|---|---------|-----|--------|-----------|
378| 1 | [Issue] | [Action] | Low/Med/High | L0X |
379...
380
381## Summary Metrics
382
383| Metric | Value |
384|--------|-------|
385| Total Lessons | X |
386| Average Word Count | X |
387| Student Score | X/10 |
388| Teacher Score | X/10 |
389| Overall Score | X/10 |
390| Critical Issues | X |
391| Estimated Fix Time | X hours |
392```
393
394## Quality Reference
395
396Compare evaluated chapters against high-quality reference lessons. The skill should automatically identify and read a reference lesson from Part 1 or Part 6 for comparison when available.
397
398Reference lesson patterns to look for:
399- `01-agent-factory-paradigm/01-digital-fte-revolution.md`
400- `33-introduction-to-ai-agents/01-what-is-an-ai-agent.md`
401
402## Resources
403
404### references/
405
406See `references/` for detailed rubrics:
407- `student-rubric.md` - Detailed student perspective evaluation criteria
408- `teacher-rubric.md` - Detailed teacher perspective evaluation criteria
409- `word-count-benchmarks.md` - Word count guidelines by lesson type