# Curriculum Review > Reviews and improves existing course curricula with gap analysis, modern content updates, and engagement optimization. - Skill: `reaperinvest/curriculum-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add reaperinvest/curriculum-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/reaperinvest/curriculum-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: reaperinvest (https://skillmd.com/u/reaperinvest) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/reaperinvest/curriculum-review --- # Curriculum Review ## When to Use This Skill Use this skill when you need to: - Audit an existing course or training program for quality and relevance - Identify content gaps, outdated material, and engagement weak points - Modernize a curriculum with current best practices and updated examples - Optimize course structure for better completion rates and learning outcomes **DO NOT** use this skill for creating a new course from scratch or reviewing non-educational content. This is for improving existing curricula. --- ## Core Principle A CURRICULUM REVIEW IS NOT ABOUT ADDING MORE — IT IS ABOUT IDENTIFYING WHAT IS MISSING, WHAT IS OUTDATED, AND WHAT IS KILLING ENGAGEMENT, THEN MAKING SURGICAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT RAISE COMPLETION RATES AND OUTCOMES. --- ## Phase 1: Brief ### Required Inputs | Input | What to Ask | Default | |-------|------------|---------| | **Course to review** | "Share your current course outline, syllabus, or curriculum document." | No default — must be provided | | **Original goals** | "What outcomes was this course designed to deliver?" | No default — must be provided | | **Known problems** | "What feedback have you received? Where do students drop off?" | None — will assess from structure | | **Audience changes** | "Has your target audience shifted since the course was created?" | Same audience | | **Completion data** | "What is your current completion rate? Which modules have the lowest engagement?" | Unknown — will estimate from structure | **GATE: Confirm the brief and receive the existing curriculum before proceeding.** --- ## Phase 2: Audit Analyze the existing curriculum across five dimensions. ### Audit Framework ``` ## 1. Content Relevance Audit - Which topics are still current and accurate? - Which examples or case studies are outdated? - What industry changes require updated content? - Score: [1-10] ## 2. Gap Analysis - What essential topics are missing? - Where do students need more depth? - What prerequisites are assumed but not taught? - Score: [1-10] ## 3. Engagement Assessment - Where are the longest stretches without interaction? - Which modules lack exercises or application? - Where is the content dense without variety? - Score: [1-10] ## 4. Structure and Flow - Does the sequence build logically? - Are there difficulty spikes that could cause drops? - Is the pacing consistent across modules? - Score: [1-10] ## 5. Outcome Alignment - Does each module connect to the stated course outcome? - Are there modules that do not serve the final goal? - Is the final outcome achievable given what is taught? - Score: [1-10] ``` **GATE: Present the audit findings and wait for the user to prioritize improvements.** --- ## Phase 3: Recommend Create a prioritized improvement plan. ### Improvement Categories **Critical (do now):** - Factually incorrect or outdated content - Missing foundational topics that cause confusion later - Modules with zero interaction or application **Important (do soon):** - Outdated examples that weaken credibility - Engagement dead zones longer than 15 minutes without interaction - Pacing issues causing difficulty spikes **Nice to have (do later):** - Additional examples or case studies - Supplementary resources - Visual or format upgrades ### Recommendation Format For each recommendation: ``` ## Recommendation: [Title] **Priority:** Critical / Important / Nice to have **Current state:** [What exists now] **Problem:** [Why it needs to change] **Recommended change:** [Specific action] **Estimated effort:** [Low / Medium / High] **Impact on completion:** [Low / Medium / High] ``` --- ## Phase 4: Polish ### 1. Updated Curriculum Map Provide a revised outline showing all changes: - Marked additions (new content) - Marked removals (cut content) - Marked revisions (updated content) - New module order if restructured ### 2. Implementation Roadmap ``` ## Phase 1 (This week): Critical fixes - [ ] [Specific action] ## Phase 2 (This month): Important improvements - [ ] [Specific action] ## Phase 3 (This quarter): Enhancements - [ ] [Specific action] ``` ### 3. Ongoing Review Schedule Recommend a quarterly content freshness check: - Review examples and data for accuracy - Check completion rate trends per module - Survey recent graduates for feedback - Update one module per quarter minimum --- ## Example 1: Outdated Marketing Course Review ``` Audit finding: 40% of examples reference platforms or features that no longer exist. Recommendation: Replace 12 case studies with current examples. Priority: Critical. Estimated effort: Medium (8-10 hours of content updates). ``` ## Example 2: Low-Completion Coding Bootcamp ``` Audit finding: Module 4 has a 60% drop-off rate. Content jumps from basic to advanced with no bridge. Recommendation: Add an intermediate exercise module between 3 and 4. Priority: Critical. Estimated effort: High (new module creation, 15-20 hours). ``` --- ## Anti-Patterns - **Reviewing without data** — gut feelings are not a curriculum review. Use completion rates, feedback, and drop-off data wherever available. - **Adding without cutting** — if you add 3 modules, consider removing or merging 2. Course bloat kills completion. - **Surface-level updates** — changing screenshots while ignoring structural problems wastes time. - **Ignoring the audience shift** — a course built for beginners in 2020 may now attract intermediates. Adjust depth accordingly. - **Recommending a full rebuild** — the goal is improvement, not replacement. Focus on highest-impact changes first. --- ## Recovery - **No curriculum document provided:** Ask the user to list module titles and one-sentence descriptions for each. Work from that outline. - **No completion data:** Estimate engagement risk based on module length, interactivity, and content type. Flag modules over 20 minutes with no exercises. - **User wants to add everything:** Force-rank recommendations by impact. Limit Phase 1 to the top 3 critical fixes. - **Course is beyond repair:** If more than 70% of content needs replacement, recommend building a new course using the working 30% as a foundation rather than patching the old one.