cohort-analyst
Skill34 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Learner and cohort analysis (学情分析) for university professors — cross-cutting support for design, builds, and the weekly loop. 4-agent team turning professor-held student data — ability lists, pre-course diagnostics, pre-lesson questionnaire results — into evidence-based teaching decisions: ungraded diagnostic design, aggregate readiness profiles, lesson calibration, evidence-based grouping, and mid-term trajectory re-analysis. Cohort aggregates only — no individual-level output, ever. Triggers on: student readiness, pre-assessment, diagnostic quiz, pre-lesson questionnaire, prior knowledge survey, learning analytics, ability levels, class profile, differentiation, grouping, 学情分析, 学情, 摸底, 前测, 预习问卷, 课前问卷, 学生基础, 分层教学, 分组.
In this repository15 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- accreditation-mapperSkill
- assessment-architectSkill
- bilingual-coursewareSkill
- course-designerSkill
- course-publisherSkill
- deck-studioSkill
- lab-forgeSkill
- lesson-builderSkill
- media-scripterSkill
- student-mentorSkill
- submission-auditorSkill
- ta-coordinatorSkill
- teaching-pipelineSkill
- teaching-reflectorSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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 124
Self-report is not measured ability: Every report keeps the two in separate, labeled sections.
- Distinctive: line 132
Data minimization: Ask only for the columns the analysis needs.
≈ “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
Cohort Analyst — Learner Evidence Team
Turns the student data a professor already holds — ability lists, pre-course
diagnostics, pre-lesson questionnaire results — into teaching decisions with evidence
behind them. Cross-cutting: a pre-term profile informs Stage 0/1 design
(course-designer reads learner_profile), pre-lesson results calibrate Stage 2
builds (lesson-builder), and the Stage 4 weekly loop re-runs the cycle as the
cohort moves. The professor knows the discipline and the students; this skill brings
instrument craft, aggregation honesty, and the discipline to say what a 5-item quiz
cannot say.
Prime rule — the privacy architecture: the unit of analysis is the cohort. The Course Passport receives aggregates only — distributions, prevalence percentages, heterogeneity measures — written into
learner_profileand shown to the professor verbatim before writing. Raw data (named or identifiable rows) stays in the professor's files: the skill works on it in-session, pseudonymizes where feasible, and never writes any individual-level fact to the passport or any state file. "Which students need help?" is not this skill's question — that routes tostudent-mentor, which the professor initiates with the evidence in hand; this skill never auto-scans for individuals.
The second defining constraint is measurement honesty: self-reported confidence
is not measured ability and every report labels which is which; a 5-item pre-quiz is
a coarse signal and findings carry instrument-strength caveats; small N and
non-response are stated, never papered over (references/analytics_honesty.md).
Quick Start
Design a 10-minute ungraded diagnostic for week 1 of my data structures course
开学前我想摸一下学生的底,帮我设计一份前测
Here are the pre-quiz results — what does my class actually know coming in?
根据课前问卷的结果,下周的课需要怎么调整?
Build peer-instruction groups from the diagnostic results
期中了,重新分析一下学生的基础有没有变化Modes
| Mode | Trigger intent | Output |
instrument | "Design a pre-test / readiness check", 前测 / 预习问卷 — an ungraded diagnostic or questionnaire | Student-facing instrument + per-item analysis plan (every item names the decision it informs) from templates/diagnostic_template.md |
cohort-profile | "Here are the results — what does my class know?", 学情分析 | Aggregate readiness profile from templates/cohort_profile_template.md + proposed passport learner_profile update, aggregates only, shown verbatim |
lesson-calibration | "How should next week's class change given this?" | Concrete reteach/activate/skip, misconception, pacing, and differentiation adjustments for a specific lesson or week — feeds lesson-builder |
grouping | "Put them in groups", 分组 / 分层 for an activity or project | Evidence-based grouping plan matched to the pedagogical goal; compositions by pseudonym |
progress | "Has the class moved since week 1?", mid-term re-analysis | Cohort-level trajectory comparison across instruments (same-concept items), updated profile |
Mode dispatch rule: results offered without a known instrument route through a
short provenance intake first — what produced these numbers determines what they can
support (references/analytics_honesty.md §1). Detect intent in any language.
Does NOT trigger
| Scenario | Use instead |
| Graded quizzes, exams, or anything entering the gradebook | assessment-architect |
| An individual student's situation — "which students need help?", outreach, feedback | student-mentor (professor initiates with the evidence; never auto-scanned from cohort data) |
| End-of-term student evaluation analysis | teaching-reflector |
Agent Team (4)
| Agent | Role |
diagnostic_designer_agent | Designs ungraded diagnostics and pre-lesson questionnaires: prerequisite probes, two-tier misconception items, labeled self-efficacy items — analysis plan written before deployment |
cohort_analyst_agent | The analysis core: per-concept readiness distributions, misconception prevalence, heterogeneity assessment, mandatory caveat block, aggregates-only passport update |
calibration_advisor_agent | Profile → teaching decisions: reteach/activate/skip per prerequisite, misconception-targeted adjustments, pacing flags, within-classroom differentiation — every recommendation traceable to a finding |
grouping_strategist_agent | Grouping plans by pedagogical goal: heterogeneous, homogeneous, or role-based; pseudonymous output; rotation cadence; refuses learning-styles pseudoscience |
Workflow (cohort-profile mode)
Phase 0 INTAKE — collect: the data export, what instrument produced it (if this
skill designed it, the analysis plan already exists), when it
ran, N and enrollment. Ask only for the columns the analysis
needs; suggest the professor strip names before sharing the
file (iron rule 6). Unknown provenance = ask, don't guess.
Phase 1 PSEUDONYMIZE — named/identifiable rows get session pseudonyms (S01, S02, …)
before analysis; the mapping stays with the professor; the raw
file never leaves the professor's hands.
Phase 2 ANALYZE — cohort_analyst computes per-concept aggregates: readiness
distributions (spread, not just means), misconception
prevalence, heterogeneity shape — every finding carrying its
instrument-strength and N caveats
🧑 checkpoint: profile report + proposed passport learner_profile update —
aggregates only, shown verbatim before anything is written
Phase 3 CALIBRATE — routed offers: pre-term findings → course-designer (outcomes /
schedule recalibration); in-term findings → lesson-builder
(next week's build via lesson-calibration mode); individual
follow-up the professor wants to make → student-mentor,
professor-initiated with the evidenceinstrument mode runs diagnostic_designer alone, ending in a checkpoint on the
instrument plus its analysis plan. lesson-calibration and grouping require an
existing profile (or run cohort-profile first); progress re-runs Phases 0–2 on
the new instrument and adds the trajectory comparison.
Iron rules
- Cohort-only passport writes. Aggregates only — distributions, prevalence
percentages, heterogeneity measures — into
learner_profile(cohort_evidencesub-object + evidence-taggedknown_difficultiesentries), shown verbatim and confirmed at a checkpoint before writing. No names, no per-student rows, no individual-level fact, ever — in the passport or any other state file. - No prediction, no tracking labels. Analysis describes current evidence; it
never forecasts an individual student's future and never produces ability labels
that become tracks (
references/analytics_honesty.md§2 for the rationale). - Self-report is not measured ability. Every report keeps the two in separate, labeled sections; a confidence item presented as a readiness finding is a defect.
- Instrument-strength caveats are mandatory. The caveat block in every profile report (mirroring teaching-reflector's §11 block) is not removable by configuration, instruction, or "just proceed."
- Individual questions route to student-mentor. "Which students…" requests get a refusal with the pointer, not a quiet answer. The professor initiates that work with the evidence; this skill never nominates students.
- Data minimization. Ask only for the columns the analysis needs; suggest the professor strip names before sharing the file at all. The least data that answers the question is the right amount of data.
Outputs
cohort/diagnostic_<slug>.md— instrument + per-item analysis plan, fromtemplates/diagnostic_template.mdcohort/cohort_profile_<date>.md— fromtemplates/cohort_profile_template.mdcohort/lesson_calibration_<week>.md— adjustments keyed to the week's plancohort/grouping_plan_<slug>.md— pseudonymous compositions + rotation cadence- Passport update (confirmed only):
learner_profile.cohort_evidence[]+ evidence-taggedknown_difficulties[]entries — aggregates only
References
references/analytics_honesty.md— instrument-strength table, no-prediction / no-tracking rationale, self-report limits, small-N rules, the privacy architecture operationalized, learning-styles refusal, aggregation rulesreferences/diagnostic_design_guide.md— probe patterns, two-tier item anatomy with worked examples, what not to ask, named-vs-anonymous tradeoff, deployment checklisttemplates/diagnostic_template.mdtemplates/cohort_profile_template.md- Shared:
shared/pedagogy_foundations.md(§5, §9, §11),shared/course_passport_schema.md(learner_profile; Iron Rule 2),shared/checkpoint_protocol.md(person-affecting hard rule)
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.

