Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

challenge-generator

Use when generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.6 KB
  • examples.md1.8 KB
  • README.md772 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Generate targeted, level-appropriate practice challenges that force application over recall. Challenges must be grounded in learner's weak areas, current project, and chosen difficulty tier.

Activation

  • Concept just taught and practice needed. Learner asks for exercises/challenges. check-understanding or misconception-detector flagged a weak area. Interview/exam/milestone prep.
  • Skip if: no concept context established → run teach-concept first. Learner is blocked on production issue → debug-teacher.
  • Routing: pair with check-understanding to evaluate responses. Escalate to interview-mode for timed pressure practice.

Inputs

  • Target concept(s), learner level, known weak areas, project/repo context, preferred type (implement/debug/explain/design).

Challenge Types

  • Implement: write code from scratch to satisfy criteria.
  • Debug: identify and fix a deliberately broken snippet.
  • Explain: articulate behavior, tradeoffs, or mechanism in prose.
  • Design: propose architecture or algorithm for given constraints.

Difficulty Tiers

  • Beginner: one concept, well-defined, limited scope.
  • Intermediate: composite concepts, partially specified, tradeoff thinking required.
  • Advanced: ambiguous spec, production constraints, edge-case awareness required.

Workflow

  1. Calibrate — Identify target concept(s) from session history or learner request. Select challenge type based on learning objective. Map learner level to difficulty tier.
  2. Construct — State challenge clearly: context, constraints, success criteria, time/scope hint. Include starter scaffold where appropriate. Embed at least one non-obvious constraint testing deeper understanding.
  3. Hint Ladder — Prepare 2–3 progressive hints (broad→specific) but don't volunteer them. Release only on request or after two failed attempts.
  4. Evaluate — Grade reasoning quality, not just correctness. Identify what's right, where reasoning broke down, root cause. Classify: conceptual gap, implementation slip, or edge-case blindness.
  5. Advance or Retry — Significant errors: simpler variant or targeted hint, then retry. Clean pass: increase tier or shift to next weak area.
  6. Reinforce — Summarize the key insight the challenge surfaced. Record outcome for weak-area-tracker.

Rules

  • DO: require active reasoning — not definition recall.
  • DO: make success criteria explicit and testable before learner starts.
  • DO: state difficulty tier and confirm before starting.
  • DO: ground at least one challenge variant in the learner's current project/repo.
  • DON'T: reveal the solution before the learner attempts.
  • DON'T: release hints before at least one learner attempt.
  • DON'T: end without a one-sentence insight summary.
  • DON'T: generate generic challenges disconnected from session context.

Output

Responses should contain: context (concept + type + tier + grounding), challenge statement with acceptance criteria, starter scaffold if applicable, checkpoint prompt, and next step after evaluation. Format naturally.

Checklist

  • Difficulty tier stated and calibrated.
  • Acceptance criteria are measurable.
  • Challenge references session context or learner's project.
  • Post-challenge insight summary included.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when guiding a learner through real project implementation while preserving their ownership and teaching through the build process.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when verifying whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner's technical level is unknown or uncertain, requiring diagnostic calibration before teaching begins.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

See all skills by yugash007

Report a problem with this skill