agentleFS
WilliamEbongWilliamEbong/CourseForge/.claude/skills/assessment-design/SKILL.md

assessment-design

Skill0 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub

Writing valid formative and graded items for every CourseForge interaction mode (item-writing rules, distractor design, teaching feedback, Bloom alignment, answer keys). Used by CourseForge STORYBOARD authoring.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Taught before tested: Every item draws only on content taught earlier in the course.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Put shared words in the stem, not repeated in every option.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    No trick wording, trivia, or reliance on exact phrasing from the course.

    line 21
  4. Distinctive:

    Every distractor gets option feedback naming its specific error ("This treats the safety data sheet as a task risk assessment.

    line 31

≈ “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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Assessment design

Principles

  • Validity first. An item measures its objective at the objective's level. If a learner could answer by recognising a phrase from the text, the item measures reading, not the objective.
  • One defensible answer. For single choice, experts must agree on the key using the cited evidence. For other modes, every pairing, category or position is unambiguous.
  • Taught before tested. Every item draws only on content taught earlier in the course.
  • Feedback teaches. Feedback is the last and most memorable teaching moment. Explain why, cite evidence, address the specific error.

Stems

  • Pose a complete question or task; a learner covering the options should be able to form an answer.
  • Put shared words in the stem, not repeated in every option.
  • Positive wording by default. If a negative is essential ("Which is NOT…"), capitalise it and never combine with negative options.
  • No trick wording, trivia, or reliance on exact phrasing from the course.
  • For graded items: standalone, randomisable, no references to other items or to "the scenario above" unless the scenario is in the stem.
  • Scenario stems carry the facts needed; nothing depends on assumptions outside the course.

Distractors

  • Draw them from real misconceptions identified in the design and the domain: confusing hazard with risk, treating guidance as law, relying on the last line of defence, confusing correction with corrective action.
  • Make them parallel to the key in length, grammar, specificity and tone. The longest, most qualified option should not reliably be correct.
  • No "all of the above", "none of the above", joke options, or options that overlap so two are simultaneously right.
  • Three to four options for single choice; four to six for multiple response.
  • Every distractor gets option feedback naming its specific error ("This treats the safety data sheet as a task risk assessment; the SDS describes the product, not your task").

Modes and keys

ModeUse forKeys
singlebest answer, scenario decisions, interpretationexactly one correct key
multipleidentifying all relevant factors, criteria or dutiesall correct keys; at least two correct and at least one incorrect; stem says select all that apply
matchingterm to definition, party to duty, control to exampleevery option key mapped to one target key
categorizationsorting examples into types or levelsevery item mapped to one category; each category used
sequencingprocesses where order genuinely mattersall option keys in correct order
revealreflection and self-explanation, formative onlyno keys; model answer in rationale

Matching, categorisation and sequencing must be completable with keyboard controls (select menus, move-up/move-down buttons); the storyboard never specifies drag as the only mechanic.

Levels and item types

  • Remember/understand: identification and explanation items with realistic examples, not definitions copied from the text.
  • Apply: scenarios where learners choose an action using a principle.
  • Analyse: categorisation, interpretation of a label, report or data extract, distinguishing similar cases.
  • Evaluate: choose the best-supported option among plausible ones and recognise the reason.

Feedback

  • feedbackCorrect: confirm and extend ("Yes. The hazard stayed the same; the task changed exposure and consequence, so the risk changed.").
  • feedbackIncorrect: redirect to the principle without giving away the key when retry is allowed; for graded review, explain.
  • optionFeedback: one short explanation per incorrect option.
  • rationale: the reasoning behind the key, anchored in the cited evidence.
  • Tone: respectful and specific; never "Wrong!" or "Great job!" alone.

Formative vs graded

  • Formative items rehearse with rich feedback and may be easier, but they reach toward the objective's level.
  • Graded items are new items (never copied from formative), at least two per objective, spanning foundational, applied and integrative difficulty, weighted toward applied for workplace objectives.
  • A passing score is a design suggestion; nothing implies certification.

Self-check per item

Does it map to the right objective and level? Is the key correct per the cited claims, and is it the only defensible key? Are distractors plausible and parallel? Does every option have feedback? Is it taught earlier? Can it be answered by keyboard and screen reader?

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.