curriculum-mapper
Skill1 starsChanged 38 days agoMITView on GitHub
Maps a course's scope and sequence across a term or year - units, weeks, standards coverage with introduced/developed/mastered notation, and Bloom's-level progression - and flags gaps and redundancy. Use when someone asks "map my curriculum for the year", "build a scope and sequence for this course", "audit my course for standards gaps", or is deciding unit order for a semester. Do NOT use for planning a single lesson - use lesson-plan-builder instead; for adapting one lesson to mixed readiness levels in one classroom, use differentiated-instruction.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- SkillMedev/course-creator-launch-systemword for word, first seen Jul 5, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- SkillMedev/course-creator-launch-system★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository5 other files it gives its agents.
- differentiated-instructionSkill
- lesson-plan-builderSkill
- quiz-generatorSkill
- rubric-builderSkill
- student-feedback-writerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
11 rules. About 0 are common, 11 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈11
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 35
Place prerequisite concepts before the units that consume them.
- Distinctive: line 37
Place the year's most cognitively demanding unit where stamina and assessment load allow - typically not the week before state testing, and …
- Distinctive: line 47
Every M should be preceded by at least one I and one D in earlier units.
- Distinctive: line 73
Read the rows: LS2-6 moves Introduced-elsewhere → Developed → Mastered across units, and the Bloom's level climbs from Analyze to Create - …
- Distinctive: line 81
Do not map to the calendar's raw day count - subtract testing windows and lost days first, or every unit runs short.
- Distinctive: line 82
Do not name units by topic - topic names hide the thinking the unit demands.
- Distinctive: line 83
Do not treat a single appearance of a standard as coverage - once is exposure, not mastery.
- Distinctive: line 84
Do not let the textbook's chapter order dictate sequence - it was built for generality, not this course's learning logic.
- Distinctive: line 85
Do not allocate 100% of available weeks - a map with no flex fails at the first assembly.
- Distinctive: line 86
Do not ship a map whose assessments never exceed Apply on Bloom's - complete coverage at low rigor is still a weak year.
- Distinctive: line 92
Every standard in the framework is placed, flagged as a gap, or explicitly excluded with a reason.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Curriculum Mapper
Curriculum mapping makes the invisible visible: what is taught, when, in what order, and whether the sequence actually serves learning. The costly failure it prevents is discovered in April - a standard that was never taught, a unit taught twice by different teachers, or a year whose cognitive ceiling never rose above recall. A good map surfaces those problems in August, when they cost a planning hour instead of a cohort's outcomes.
Operating procedure
Order matters: parameters constrain units, units constrain sequence, and standards alignment is only checkable once the sequence exists.
Step 1: Gather parameters
Collect before mapping; label estimates as estimates:
- Grade level or course, and duration (semester, trimester, year).
- Instructional days actually available: start from the calendar total, subtract testing windows, assemblies, and predictable non-instructional days. Most planners overestimate by 10-15%; a 180-day calendar commonly yields 150-160 teachable days.
- The standards set or framework in force.
- Non-negotiable anchor events: state testing dates, major projects, schedule breaks. These are fixed points the sequence must route around.
Step 2: Identify the big units
- Break the course into four to eight major units. Fewer than four means insufficient granularity to spot gaps; more than eight creates scheduling fragility, because one lost week cascades.
- Name each unit by its essential question or central concept, not its topic. "How do ecosystems respond to disruption?" drives instruction; "Ecosystems Unit 3" does not.
- Assign each unit a preliminary week allocation, and hold roughly 10% of total weeks unallocated as flex - reteach time, snow days, and assessment slippage are certainties, not risks.
Step 3: Sequence with intention
Unit order follows learning logic, not textbook order:
- Place prerequisite concepts before the units that consume them.
- Exploit seasonal context where students will have real-world hooks.
- Place the year's most cognitively demanding unit where stamina and assessment load allow - typically not the week before state testing, and not the final weeks of the year.
- Mark every unit that could move without damaging the sequence; these are the scheduling flexibility reserves used when the calendar slips.
Step 4: Align standards with I/D/M notation
For each unit, list the primary standards and tag each as Introduced, Developed, or Mastered in that unit. Then read the tags across the whole map:
- A standard that appears only once is a coverage flag, not a mastery plan - one exposure is not learning.
- A standard that never appears is a gap; it must be placed or its omission explicitly justified.
- A standard tagged in every unit signals over-reliance or a scope problem.
- Every M should be preceded by at least one I and one D in earlier units. An M with no I/D history is a rigor illusion.
Step 5: Check the Bloom's progression
Tag each unit's key assessments with their dominant Bloom's level: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyze, Evaluate, Create. Then apply two checks:
- Trajectory: the year should climb. Early units may live at Remember/Understand/Apply; by the final third, major assessments should demand Analyze, Evaluate, or Create. A course whose assessments never exceed Apply has a rigor ceiling regardless of how complete its standards coverage looks.
- Within-unit floor: even early units should include at least one task above Understand, or the map is training recall and calling it learning.
Step 6: Flag vertical and horizontal connections
Horizontal connections link to other subjects taught at the same grade in the same window - interdisciplinary reinforcement opportunities. Vertical connections link to what students learned the prior year and will learn the next. Flag both, even briefly; they inform pacing and depth decisions.
Step 7: Produce the map
Deliver a table with columns: Unit Name, Essential Question, Weeks Allocated, Primary Standards (with I/D/M notation), Bloom's Level of Key Assessments, Key Assessments, and Connection Notes. Include a summary row with total weeks (including flex) and a gap/redundancy flag column. Offer two views: a condensed one-page overview and a detailed unit-by-unit breakdown.
Worked example: two map rows
| Unit | Essential Question | Weeks | Standards (I/D/M) | Bloom's | Key Assessment | Connections |
|------|-------------------|-------|-------------------|---------|----------------|-------------|
| Ecosystems Under Pressure | How do ecosystems respond to disruption? | 5 | LS2-1 (I), LS2-4 (I), LS2-6 (D) | Understand -> Analyze | Case-study analysis of a local watershed | Horizontal: stats unit on data display. Vertical: builds on Gr7 food webs |
| Designing for Resilience | Can human systems mimic ecological resilience? | 4 | LS2-6 (M), ETS1-1 (D) | Evaluate -> Create | Design proposal + peer critique | Vertical: feeds Gr10 environmental engineering |Read the rows: LS2-6 moves Introduced-elsewhere → Developed → Mastered across units, and the Bloom's level climbs from Analyze to Create - both progressions a gap audit should confirm for every mastered standard.
Deliverable
Produce a complete curriculum map: the parameter block (instructional days after subtractions, standards set, anchor events), 4-8 units with essential questions and week allocations plus ~10% flex, the full table with I/D/M and Bloom's columns, a gap/redundancy flag list, and the two views (one-page overview, detailed breakdown).
Do NOT
- Do not map to the calendar's raw day count - subtract testing windows and lost days first, or every unit runs short.
- Do not name units by topic - topic names hide the thinking the unit demands.
- Do not treat a single appearance of a standard as coverage - once is exposure, not mastery.
- Do not let the textbook's chapter order dictate sequence - it was built for generality, not this course's learning logic.
- Do not allocate 100% of available weeks - a map with no flex fails at the first assembly.
- Do not ship a map whose assessments never exceed Apply on Bloom's - complete coverage at low rigor is still a weak year.
Quality bar
- Instructional-day math shown, not assumed; anchor events placed before units.
- 4-8 units, each named by essential question, with ~10% flex weeks held back.
- Every standard in the framework is placed, flagged as a gap, or explicitly excluded with a reason; every M has prior I and D.
- Bloom's trajectory climbs across the year and is tagged per unit.
- Movable units are marked as flexibility reserves.
- Both views delivered: one-page overview and unit-by-unit detail.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

