instructional-design
Skill0 starsChanged 57 days agoMITView on GitHub
Learning architecture for evidence-based e-learning (performance analysis, content disposition, measurable objectives, sequencing, cognitive load, scenario strategy, duration). Used by CourseForge INSTRUCTIONAL_DESIGN authoring and design, storyboard and QA reviewers.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- thensls/nsls-builder-toolkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- bhf/stay-learningtheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- joelrkohlman/instructional-designtheir own version, first seen May 22, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- bhf/stay-learning★ 1same name
- joelrkohlman/instructional-design★ 0same name
- thensls/nsls-builder-toolkit★ 0same name
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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- accessibility-reviewSkill
- alignment-reviewSkill
- assessment-designSkill
- assessment-reviewSkill
- course-gap-analysisSkill
- editorial-humanizationSkill
- fact-checkSkill
- html-intake-reviewSkill
- instructional-graphicsSkill
- research-authoringSkill
- research-planningSkill
- research-reviewSkill
- scenario-designSkill
- storyboard-authoringSkill
- ui-reviewSkill
- ux-reviewSkill
- visual-directionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
6
Distinctive
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 32
Never imply certification or legal competence.
- Distinctive: line 52
Put a mental model before details.
- Distinctive: line 55
Prefer a diagram where the idea is structural (process, hierarchy, comparison, cycle, decision path).
- Distinctive: line 82
Every research topic has a disposition.
- Distinctive: line 83
Every objective is taught, practised and assessed at its level.
- Distinctive: line 84
Every module has one purpose and specific content points tied to claims.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Instructional design
Start from performance
Ask what learners will do differently at work: recognise a situation, explain a principle to a colleague, distinguish two things that are often confused, choose among options, document a decision, escalate to the right person. Content earns its place by serving one of those performances. Everything else is enrichment or reference.
Say what the course will not qualify learners to do. For high-stakes subjects the typical ceiling is: understand the concepts and duties, recognise when a situation needs action, and know whom to involve.
Content disposition
| Disposition | Use for | Consequence |
core | what objectives require | taught, practised, assessed |
enrichment | useful depth, technical detail, context | optional screens, never needed for graded items |
reference | lookup material: definitions, tables, source lists | glossary or reference library only |
excluded | duplication, out of scope, unsafe to operationalise, unsupported | not in the course; reason recorded |
Nothing researched disappears silently. Exclusion reasons are specific ("step-by-step decontamination procedure exceeds the awareness boundary").
Objectives
- 4–6 terminal objectives for a 60–120 minute course; one observable performance each.
- Verbs that can be observed and assessed: identify, explain, distinguish, compare, classify, interpret, select, evaluate, justify, sequence, determine, apply, document, escalate. Avoid know, understand, learn, appreciate, be aware of, be familiar with.
- Match the verb to the intended level, and the level to the assessment: "distinguish hazard from risk in a described task" (analyse) needs a scenario item, not a definition item.
- Each objective rests on specific claims from the dossier. If you cannot name them, the objective is not yet teachable.
- Never imply certification or legal competence.
Sequencing
A default that works for most workplace subjects:
- Relevance: why this matters to these learners, in their context.
- Vocabulary and prerequisite concepts, familiar to unfamiliar.
- A simple mental model or process overview that later detail hangs on.
- Components, stages, methods or options, one at a time.
- Benefits, limits, risks and evidence quality.
- Applied decisions and scenarios.
- Review by objective, and transfer to the learner's work.
Change it when the subject has its own logic (chronological, regulatory hierarchy, lifecycle), and say why. Never place a decision before the concepts it depends on.
Cognitive load
- One idea or decision per chunk. Introduce a term, use it, then build on it.
- Roughly 3–6 genuinely new terms per module. Define acronyms at first use.
- Put a mental model before details; use worked examples before independent practice.
- Split dense regulatory passages with application ("what this means when…").
- Progressive disclosure: essential explanation first, optional depth clearly marked.
- Prefer a diagram where the idea is structural (process, hierarchy, comparison, cycle, decision path); prose where it is argument or nuance.
- Analogies must be accurate and bounded, followed by the literal explanation.
Practice and retrieval
- Formative practice follows the teaching it practises, at a level approaching the graded level.
- Space retrieval: later modules include items that revisit earlier ones.
- Feedback explains the reasoning for both correct and incorrect answers, and cites evidence.
- 2–4 formative items per topic module, or one substantial scenario.
Scenarios
- Neutral, realistic situations from the learners' context; no real organisations, people, incidents or statistics presented as fact.
- A continuing case across modules helps transfer: introduce it early, return to it with new knowledge.
- Scenarios pose a genuine decision with enough information to make it. "We do not have enough information yet; escalate" can be the right answer when the evidence supports it.
- Consequences and feedback teach the principle, not just right or wrong.
Duration
Estimate reading at roughly 150–200 words per minute for plain learner text, plus time for each practice item (about 1 minute for simple items, 2–4 minutes for scenarios) and figures. A focused awareness course is often 60–90 minutes. If the evidence needs more, recommend more or a series; never cut safety-relevant qualifications to fit.
Reading level
Learner-facing language around Grade 9–11 for educated non-specialists: short sentences, common words where they are exact, technical terms kept where precision demands and defined. Simplify explanations, never the evidence.
Design quality checklist
- Every research topic has a disposition.
- Every objective is taught, practised and assessed at its level.
- Every module has one purpose and specific content points tied to claims.
- Misconceptions are named for each module.
- Scope and escalation boundaries are placed at the decisions where they matter.
- The duration is realistic.
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.

