Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

find-your-level

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.

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.8 KB
  • examples.md1.8 KB
  • README.md799 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Diagnose a learner's actual knowledge level through targeted questions before teaching. Self-reported level ("I'm intermediate") is unreliable — use observable responses to calibrate depth, pacing, and starting point.

Activation

  • New learner with no prior profile. Self-reported level inconsistent with responses. New topic with unknown background. Stale profile (2+ weeks) needs reconfirmation. Learner says "I'm not sure where to start."
  • Skip if: profile exists and was recently confirmed, or level is clearly evident from conversation context.
  • Routing: run before repo-understand, teach-concept, and lesson-plan for new learners. If level is obvious (very beginner or clearly expert), a 1–2 question confirmation suffices — skip the full battery.

Inputs

  • Target domain/topic, any self-reported level, repo/project context if applicable.

Level Definitions

  • Beginner: can't explain core vocabulary or trace a basic example.
  • Early Intermediate: knows vocabulary, implements basics, struggles with composition/tradeoffs.
  • Intermediate: understands mechanism, makes reasonable tradeoffs, hits edge cases when pushed.
  • Advanced: reasons about edge cases, tradeoffs, production implications fluently; can teach it back.

Diagnostic Tiers

3–5 questions in escalating difficulty. Stop when ceiling is reached (two consecutive weak answers).

  • Tier 1: "Explain X in one sentence." → Fluent: advance. Not: Beginner.
  • Tier 2: "Write/describe a minimal example of X." → Correct mechanism: advance. Partial: Early Intermediate.
  • Tier 3: "When would you NOT use X?" → Genuine tradeoffs: advance. Vague: Intermediate.
  • Tier 4: "Describe a production failure mode involving X." → Detailed: Advanced. Partial: Intermediate-Advanced.

Workflow

  1. Align — Confirm domain and goal. Ask self-reported confidence (1–5). Record as starting hypothesis, not conclusion.
  2. Diagnose — Start at tier matching self-report minus one. Ask one question at a time. Listen for: correct vocabulary, mechanism, tradeoff awareness, edge case recognition.
  3. Infer — Level = highest tier answered confidently. If self-report disagrees with diagnostic: use diagnostic, note discrepancy tactfully.
  4. Confirm — State inferred level with rationale. Ask: "Does this feel right?" Adjust based on learner input.
  5. Recommend — Beginner: start at prerequisites. Early Intermediate: mechanism + applied examples. Intermediate: tradeoffs + project context. Advanced: edge cases or deep-dive.

Rules

  • DO: use domain-specific questions, not generic programming trivia.
  • DO: stop after two consecutive weak answers — don't interrogate.
  • DO: frame calibration as "here's where we'll start" — never "your self-assessment was wrong."
  • DO: always confirm inferred level with the learner before starting.
  • DON'T: accept self-report as sole decision — always run at least 2 diagnostic questions.
  • DON'T: shame overconfident learners.
  • DON'T: run all tiers mechanically when ceiling is clearly reached.

Output

Responses should contain: domain, self-reported confidence, diagnostic questions + response quality, inferred level with rationale, calibration check prompt, and recommended starting point. Format naturally.

Checklist

  • Diagnostic questions are domain-specific.
  • Battery stops when ceiling reached.
  • Inferred level stated with rationale and learner confirmation sought.
  • Starting point matches inferred level.

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 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.

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

See all skills by yugash007

Report a problem with this skill