89건 · 관련도순
Define the scope and purpose of a complex inquiry before mapping or futures work begins. Use when a class or group needs to agree what they are investigating, who it matters to, and at what scale.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Analyse existing written feedback for quality, specificity, actionability, and impact on student learning. Use when reviewing teacher or peer feedback to improve feedback practices.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design a diagnostic hinge question that reveals whether students understand enough to move on. Use when planning key checkpoints mid-lesson during explicit or direct instruction.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design an error analysis protocol to diagnose the root cause of student mistakes and misconceptions. Use when error patterns appear in student work and targeted feedback is needed.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Interpret learning analytics data and translate dashboard findings into actionable teaching decisions. Use when reviewing LMS data, quiz patterns, or engagement metrics.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Analyse student work against criteria to identify specific gaps between current performance and learning objectives. Use when reviewing submissions, planning feedback, or diagnosing learning needs.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Audit and redesign AI-generated feedback for pedagogical quality, timing, and learning impact. Use when building or reviewing automated feedback in digital learning tools.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Generate a criterion-referenced rubric with descriptive performance levels for a task or objective. Use for marking guides and general curriculum contexts. For Manning programmes where Competent = success, use coherent-rubric-logic-builder instead.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Build a five-level rubric with coherent logic for a learning target within a developmental band. Use for Manning methodology programmes where Competent = success. For general curriculum rubrics, use criterion-referenced-rubric-generator instead.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design a checking-for-understanding protocol with specific techniques for each lesson stage. Use when planning systematic comprehension checks during explicit or direct instruction.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives and mastery learning as practical instructional design tools. Covers the six cognitive levels (remember, understand, apply, analyze, evaluate, create), the revised 2001 taxonomy, the knowledge dimension, mastery learning loops, formative vs. summative assessment, and the writing of learning objectives that are both specific and verifiable. Use when designing lessons, writing objectives, building assessments, or diagnosing why a learner is stuck at one cognitive level.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Public speaking and oral presentation skills for effective communication. Covers speech structure (introduction, body, conclusion), delivery techniques (projection, pace, pause, gesture), audience analysis, impromptu and extemporaneous methods, managing anxiety, visual aids, and persuasive versus informative speaking. Use when preparing speeches, practicing delivery, analyzing presentations, or building confidence in oral communication.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Creative reasoning framework for ill-defined problems where conventional solutions are suboptimal. Use when the problem has ambiguous goals, vast solution space, no single correct answer, or requires innovation. Implements three paradigms — combinational (novel combinations of familiar ideas), exploratory (expand solution space boundaries), transformative (alter fundamental constraints). Do not use for well-defined problems, mathematical puzzles, or tasks requiring convergent reasoning.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Receive and act on code review feedback with technical rigor, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Content angle generator for turning dry expert topics into high-engagement infotainment. Applies 7 journalistic angle types (Myth vs Reality, Paradox, Level Error, Price of Solution, Conditions, Hidden Driver, Contrary Thesis) + historical/future lens + news-hook framing. Use when experts need their content to become interesting rather than just informative - blog posts, video scripts, social content, newsletters, landing pages, ad hooks. For any niche: B2B, B2C, services, products, personal brand.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback (especially if unclear or technically questionable), when completing tasks or major features requiring review before proceeding, or before making any completion/success claims. Covers three practices - receiving feedback with technical rigor over performative agreement, requesting reviews via code-reviewer subagent, and verification gates requiring evidence before any status claims. Essential for subagent-driven development, pull requests, and preventing false completion claims.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Label smarter, not more — pick the most informative examples for annotation to maximize model gains per label.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Design tools for AI agents — clean function interfaces, typed schemas, informative errors, idempotency, and tool documentation. Use when giving an agent new capabilities or fixing flaky tool use.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when a task needs the judgment of a Postsecondary Art, Drama, or Music Professor — diagnosing a jury/crit score that contradicts a semester of formative work, building a studio-art or performance tenure dossier around exhibitions and productions instead of publications, staffing applied one-on-one lessons or crit sections between adjuncts and full-time faculty, running a structured critique, or deciding whether a failed barrier jury means a change of major.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Always use this skill before claiming any work is done, fixed, passing, or complete — even if it seems obvious. Also use when receiving code review feedback from any source (human or automated), when finishing a task or major feature, before committing or creating a PR, or when about to express satisfaction with work. Covers three practices: receiving feedback with technical rigor (no performative agreement), triggering code review via /code-review command or cook/fix pipelines, and verification gates (run the command, read the output, then make the claim). Never skip — the cost of false completion claims is higher than the cost of verifying. References: code-review-reception.md, requesting-code-review.md, verification-before-completion.md.
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.