Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

weak-area-tracker

Use when logging, scoring, and triaging a learner's persistent weak areas to drive intervention selection.

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

Run score Not tested

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.4 KB
  • examples.md1.8 KB
  • README.md765 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Maintain a prioritized, evidence-based log of topics where the learner consistently struggles. Drives which skills to activate next and prevents ignoring recurring problems in favor of always-new content.

Activation

  • check-understanding, challenge-generator, or misconception-detector flags a repeated error. Returning learner with prior weak areas. Planning a study/revision session. Learner reports a covered topic is still unclear.
  • Skip if: first encounter with a topic (not a weak area yet). Error is a one-time slip. Learner declines tracking.
  • Routing: feed into lesson-plan and revision-mode. Use tracker to decide between challenge-generator (reinforce) vs teach-concept (re-teach) vs socratic-mode (deepen). Mark confirmed improvements and remove from active tracking.

Inputs

  • Error event (topic, type, session date, recurrence count), prior weak-area log, learner's current goals.

Severity Scoring

Score each weak area 1–5: score = recurrence × type_weight + staleness_bonus

  • Type weights: Surface=1, Structural=2, Deep=3
  • Staleness: +1 if not addressed in 3+ sessions

Intervention selection: Score 1–2 → challenge-generator. Score 3–4 → teach-concept re-teach. Score 5 → socratic-mode then misconception-detector.

Workflow

  1. Ingest — New error: add to log (recurrence=1) or increment existing entry + update last_seen.
  2. Score — Compute severity from recurrence, type, staleness, and self-reported confidence.
  3. Triage — Rank by score. Surface top 2 for current session. Max 2 weak areas per session.
  4. Select Intervention — Match score to appropriate skill (see above).
  5. Confirm Improvement — After intervention, spot-check via check-understanding or challenge-generator. 2 consecutive clean passes → "resolving." 3 consecutive → "resolved" and archived. Regression after resolution → re-open.
  6. Maintain — Cap active list at 5. Archive resolved items. Warn if topic persists 5+ sessions without resolution.

Rules

  • DO: ground weak areas in observed evidence, not assumptions.
  • DO: update scores after every session where the topic appears.
  • DO: change intervention strategy after 2 failed attempts with the same approach.
  • DO: require 2+ consecutive clean passes for resolution.
  • DO: frame output as "what we'll work on" not "what you're bad at."
  • DON'T: accumulate unbounded — cap at 5 active items.
  • DON'T: mark resolved after one good session — require consecutive passes.
  • DON'T: repeat the same intervention 3+ times without changing approach.

Output

Responses should contain: event details (topic + error type + source skill), action taken (added/incremented), severity score, active weak areas table (topic, type, recurrence, score, recommended intervention), session recommendation (top 1–2 focus areas), and resolution updates if applicable. Format naturally.

Checklist

  • Active list capped at 5 items.
  • Severity scores computed using recurrence + type + staleness.
  • Intervention matches severity score.
  • Resolution requires 2+ consecutive clean passes.

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