Stats
Actions
Tags
From example-skills
Provides pedagogical feedback frameworks like 3-2-1 model, rubric design, and comment types for student work. Activates on grading, feedback, rubrics, peer review, or critiques.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/example-skills:feedback-pedagogyThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Transform feedback from judgment to learning opportunity.
Transform feedback from judgment to learning opportunity.
| Evaluation | Feedback |
|---|---|
| Judges quality | Improves quality |
| Backward-looking | Forward-looking |
| "This is wrong" | "Here's how to improve" |
| Grade | Growth |
Strength → Growth Area → Encouragement
Better: Targeted feedback that addresses what matters most.
3 things done well (specific examples)
2 areas for development (with suggestions)
1 question to consider (promotes reflection)
| Type | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Praise | Reinforce effective choices | "Your thesis clearly states your argument and previews your main points" |
| Explanation | Clarify why something matters | "Topic sentences help readers follow your logic" |
| Suggestion | Offer concrete improvement | "Try adding a transition here to connect these ideas" |
| Question | Prompt deeper thinking | "What evidence would strengthen this claim?" |
| Reader response | Share authentic reaction | "I got lost here—what's the main point?" |
Don't mark everything. Focus on:
Higher-order concerns first
Then lower-order concerns
| Location | Use For |
|---|---|
| Marginal | Specific, local issues |
| End note | Big-picture patterns, priorities |
| Rubric | Systematic criteria assessment |
| Type | Description | Best For |
|---|---|---|
| Holistic | Single score, overall quality | Quick assessment, writing portfolios |
| Analytic | Separate scores per criterion | Detailed feedback, skill isolation |
| Single-point | Criteria list, no levels | Flexibility, avoiding "teaching to rubric" |
## [Assignment Name] Rubric
| Criterion | Excellent (4) | Good (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
|-----------|---------------|----------|----------------|---------------|
| Thesis | Clear, arguable, specific thesis that addresses prompt | Thesis present and mostly clear | Thesis unclear or too broad | No identifiable thesis |
| Evidence | Multiple relevant, well-integrated sources | Adequate evidence with some integration issues | Limited or poorly integrated evidence | Little to no evidence |
| Analysis | Sophisticated analysis connecting evidence to argument | Analysis present but could be deeper | Summary more than analysis | Minimal analysis |
| Organization | Clear structure with effective transitions | Mostly organized with some rough transitions | Disorganized or hard to follow | No discernible structure |
| Mechanics | Nearly error-free | Few errors that don't impede meaning | Errors sometimes impede meaning | Errors significantly impede meaning |
**Total: ___/20**
## [Assignment Name] Single-Point Rubric
| Areas for Growth | Criterion (Proficient) | Areas of Strength |
|------------------|------------------------|-------------------|
| [Space for feedback] | Clear thesis that takes a position | [Space for feedback] |
| [Space for feedback] | Evidence supports all major claims | [Space for feedback] |
| [Space for feedback] | Analysis explains how evidence proves thesis | [Space for feedback] |
| [Space for feedback] | Logical organization with transitions | [Space for feedback] |
| [Space for feedback] | Appropriate academic style | [Space for feedback] |
## Peer Review Guide
**Reader**: [Name]
**Writer**: [Name]
### First Read (Big Picture)
Read the whole piece without stopping. Note your overall impression.
- What is the main argument?
- What worked well?
- What confused you?
### Second Read (Detailed)
Answer these questions with specific examples:
1. **Thesis**: Can you identify the thesis? Is it arguable?
2. **Structure**: Does the organization make sense? Where did you get lost?
3. **Evidence**: Which evidence is most convincing? Where do you need more?
4. **Analysis**: Where could the writer dig deeper?
### Feedback Summary
- One thing that's working well:
- One thing to prioritize in revision:
- One question for the writer:
Readers should:
Writers should:
1. Open: "What do you want me to focus on?"
2. Listen: Let student identify concerns
3. Prioritize: "Let's focus on X because..."
4. Demonstrate: Model revision strategy
5. Apply: Have student try it
6. Close: "What's your next step?"
| Instead of... | Try... |
|---|---|
| "This is unclear" | "What do you mean here?" |
| "Add more detail" | "What else could you tell me about this?" |
| "This doesn't make sense" | "Walk me through your thinking here" |
| "You need a thesis" | "What's the main point you want readers to take away?" |
THESIS ISSUES:
- "Your thesis tells me what the paper is about but doesn't take a position.
Try: 'Although X, Y because Z.'"
- "This thesis is too broad. Can you narrow to a specific aspect?"
EVIDENCE ISSUES:
- "Good evidence, but I need your analysis. What does this quote prove?"
- "This claim needs support. What source could back this up?"
ORGANIZATION:
- "Nice paragraph, but it might fit better after [section]. See what you think."
- "I need a transition here to understand how we got from A to B."
Benefits:
Tips:
| Fixed Mindset | Growth Mindset |
|---|---|
| "You're not good at this" | "This skill takes practice" |
| "This is wrong" | "This doesn't quite work yet" |
| "You don't understand" | "Let's work on understanding" |
| "Smart students get this" | "This is challenging for everyone" |
references/rubric-templates.md - Ready-to-use rubricsreferences/comment-bank.md - Reusable feedback commentsreferences/peer-review-protocols.md - Peer review activitiesnpx claudepluginhub a-organvm/a-i--skills --plugin document-skillsProvides a checklist for code reviews covering functionality, security, performance, maintainability, tests, and quality. Use for pull requests, audits, team standards, and developer training.