agentleFS
YujxZJCNYujxZJCN/teaching-skills/cohort-analyst/SKILL.md

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.

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
  1. Distinctive:

    Self-report is not measured ability: Every report keeps the two in separate, labeled sections.

    line 124
  2. Distinctive:

    Data minimization: Ask only for the columns the analysis needs.

    line 132

≈ “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

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_profile and 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 to student-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

ModeTrigger intentOutput
instrument"Design a pre-test / readiness check", 前测 / 预习问卷 — an ungraded diagnostic or questionnaireStudent-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 projectEvidence-based grouping plan matched to the pedagogical goal; compositions by pseudonym
progress"Has the class moved since week 1?", mid-term re-analysisCohort-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

ScenarioUse instead
Graded quizzes, exams, or anything entering the gradebookassessment-architect
An individual student's situation — "which students need help?", outreach, feedbackstudent-mentor (professor initiates with the evidence; never auto-scanned from cohort data)
End-of-term student evaluation analysisteaching-reflector

Agent Team (4)

AgentRole
diagnostic_designer_agentDesigns ungraded diagnostics and pre-lesson questionnaires: prerequisite probes, two-tier misconception items, labeled self-efficacy items — analysis plan written before deployment
cohort_analyst_agentThe analysis core: per-concept readiness distributions, misconception prevalence, heterogeneity assessment, mandatory caveat block, aggregates-only passport update
calibration_advisor_agentProfile → teaching decisions: reteach/activate/skip per prerequisite, misconception-targeted adjustments, pacing flags, within-classroom differentiation — every recommendation traceable to a finding
grouping_strategist_agentGrouping 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 evidence

instrument 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

  1. Cohort-only passport writes. Aggregates only — distributions, prevalence percentages, heterogeneity measures — into learner_profile (cohort_evidence sub-object + evidence-tagged known_difficulties entries), 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.
  4. 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."
  5. 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.
  6. 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, from templates/diagnostic_template.md
  • cohort/cohort_profile_<date>.md — from templates/cohort_profile_template.md
  • cohort/lesson_calibration_<week>.md — adjustments keyed to the week's plan
  • cohort/grouping_plan_<slug>.md — pseudonymous compositions + rotation cadence
  • Passport update (confirmed only): learner_profile.cohort_evidence[] + evidence-tagged known_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 rules
  • references/diagnostic_design_guide.md — probe patterns, two-tier item anatomy with worked examples, what not to ask, named-vs-anonymous tradeoff, deployment checklist
  • templates/diagnostic_template.md
  • templates/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)

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.