Requested topic/task: $ARGUMENTS

Before accessing education data, read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/education-data.md. Resolve every <education-db> below using that contract. Current session ID: ${CLAUDE_SESSION_ID}.

Compare — Side-by-Side Concept Comparisons

Creates a structured, researched comparison of two concepts. Adapts depth and language to the student's level. Results are saved to both project-local and global education docs.

Invocation

/claude-teacher:compare <concept A> vs <concept B>

Examples:

• /claude-teacher:compare TCP vs UDP
• /claude-teacher:compare REST vs GraphQL
• /claude-teacher:compare mutex vs semaphore
• /claude-teacher:compare Docker vs VMs
• /claude-teacher:compare SQL vs NoSQL

Process

1. Parse the two concepts from the invocation (prefer vs or versus; ask if the boundary is ambiguous instead of splitting names that contain and)
2. Read <education-db>/student.json — adapt to level, interests, and learning style
3. Read <education-db>/dashboard.json — check if either concept is already tracked
4. If tracked, read <education-db>/topics/<concept>.json for each — check depth, misconceptions
5. Use WebSearch to research BOTH concepts before writing the comparison — never rely solely on training data. Search for official documentation, authoritative articles, and recent best-practice guides for each concept.
6. Generate the structured comparison (see Output Format below)
7. Save comparison to docs and update DB (see DB Update below)

Output Format

Present the comparison in this exact structure:

── Compare: [Concept A] vs [Concept B] ──────────────────

## What they are

**[Concept A]:** [One-line summary]
**[Concept B]:** [One-line summary]

## Side-by-side comparison

| Feature            | [Concept A]       | [Concept B]       |
|--------------------|-------------------|-------------------|
| [Feature 1]        | [Value/behavior]  | [Value/behavior]  |
| [Feature 2]        | [Value/behavior]  | [Value/behavior]  |
| [Feature 3]        | [Value/behavior]  | [Value/behavior]  |
| ...                | ...               | ...               |

Include 5-8 rows covering the most important differentiators.
Adapt column detail to student level (beginner = simpler terms, advanced = precise technical language).

## When to use which

**Choose [Concept A] when:**
- [Concrete scenario 1]
- [Concrete scenario 2]
- [Concrete scenario 3]

**Choose [Concept B] when:**
- [Concrete scenario 1]
- [Concrete scenario 2]
- [Concrete scenario 3]

## Common misconceptions

- **Misconception:** "[common wrong belief]"
  **Reality:** [correction with explanation]

- **Misconception:** "[another common wrong belief]"
  **Reality:** [correction with explanation]

Include 2-4 misconceptions. If the student has recorded misconceptions about either topic, address those FIRST.

## Key takeaway

> [One memorable sentence that captures the essential difference]

**Sources:** [list 2-4 links to official docs, RFCs, or authoritative articles used]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Rules

1. Always research first. Use WebSearch for both concepts before writing. Every factual claim must be backed by a source. List sources at the end.
2. Adapt to student level. Read student.json:
   • Beginner: use analogies from their interests, simpler terms, fewer rows in the table
   • Intermediate: balance precision with clarity, include practical examples
   • Advanced: use precise technical language, include edge cases and nuances
3. Use the student's interests for analogies. If they like gaming, music, sports — weave those into the "when to use which" scenarios or the key takeaway.
4. Respect dislikes. If the student dislikes dry textbook comparisons, lead with real-world scenarios. If they dislike oversimplification, include nuanced details.
5. Address known misconceptions first. If either concept has unresolved misconceptions in its topic file, the "Common misconceptions" section must address those before generic ones.
6. Keep the table scannable. Use short values in table cells. If a cell needs elaboration, add a footnote below the table.
7. Be honest about overlap. If the concepts are not strictly either/or (e.g., "you can use both together"), say so clearly.
8. After the comparison, suggest next steps:

   Want to go deeper?
   - /claude-teacher:ascii [concept] — visualize how each works under the hood
   - /claude-teacher:quiz-me [concept] — test your understanding of either concept
   - /claude-teacher:challenge [concept] — hands-on practice with one of them

DB Update

After generating the comparison:

1. Save comparison doc to both locations:

• Global: <education-db>/docs/<concept-a>-vs-<concept-b>.md
• Project-local: docs/<concept-a>-vs-<concept-b>.md (if docs/ directory exists in the project)

Each saved doc includes:

• The full comparison output
• Sources/links used
• Date saved
• Related topics

2. Update topic files — for each concept that exists in <education-db>/topics/:

• Update only last_seen to today
• Add the other concept to related_topics if not already present
• Preserve last_reviewed, next_review, and review_interval_days until an assessment

3. Update dashboard <education-db>/dashboard.json:

• Update last_seen for any tracked concepts
• If either concept is new and has not been covered before, do NOT create a topic entry — comparisons alone are not enough to mark a topic as learned. Instead, suggest: "Want me to teach [concept] in depth? Then we can track it."

4. Append to session log <education-db>/sessions/[date].jsonl:

{"time": "[now]", "event": "compare", "concepts": ["<concept-a>", "<concept-b>"], "level_adapted": "<student-level>"}

Integration with Other Skills

• /claude-teacher:ascii [concept] — visualize how each concept works under the hood (suggest after comparison)
• /claude-teacher:quiz-me [concept] — test understanding of either concept after comparing
• /claude-teacher:challenge [concept] — hands-on practice with one of the compared concepts
• /claude-teacher:save-progress — comparison results are auto-saved, but student can explicitly checkpoint