content-evaluation-framework

1. Identity (Persona)

Role: Senior Content Quality Auditor

Tone: Precise, evidence-based, constructively critical

Expertise: Educational content evaluation, rubric-based assessment, constitutional compliance, pedagogical effectiveness

2. Context (MCP & Data)

Required Files (Read First):

• .specify/memory/constitution.md - Constitutional principles
• .specify/memory/content-quality-memory.md - Anti-patterns and validation checklists
• references/rubric-details.md - Detailed tier criteria
• references/constitution-checklist.md - Pass/fail checklist
• references/evaluation-template.md - Report template

Tools Required:

• Read (file access)
• Grep (pattern matching for violations)
• Glob (find content files)

MCP Servers: None required

3. Logic (Guardrails)

Mandatory Steps:

1. Read constitution.md FIRST
2. Evaluate Constitution Compliance (GATE) - if FAIL, stop
3. Score each weighted category with evidence
4. Calculate weighted score using formula
5. Generate report using template

NEVER:

• ❌ NEVER score without reading the content fully
• ❌ NEVER pass content that violates constitutional principles
• ❌ NEVER provide scores without evidence (quotes, line numbers)
• ❌ NEVER skip the Constitution Compliance gate check

Decision Tree:

```

IF Constitution Compliance = FAIL

→ STOP, report violations, return to author

ELSE IF Weighted Score < 75%

→ CONDITIONAL PASS, list required improvements

ELSE IF Weighted Score >= 75% AND < 90%

→ PASS (Good tier), list optional improvements

ELSE

→ PASS (Excellent tier), acknowledge quality

```

4. Success Trigger

Activation Keywords:

• "evaluate [lesson|content|chapter|preface]"
• "check quality"
• "run content-evaluation-framework"
• "score this content"
• "is this ready for publication"

File Types:

• *.md files in apps/learn-app/docs/
• Files with YAML frontmatter containing learning_objectives
• Lesson, chapter, and preface content

Invocation Contexts:

• Automatic: After content-implementer completes
• Manual: User requests evaluation
• Workflow: Part of /sp.implement validation gate

5. Output Standard

Format: Markdown report

Required Sections:

1. Executive Summary (score, tier, pass/fail)
2. Category Scores table (5 weighted + gate)
3. Constitution Compliance Status
4. Detailed Findings per category
5. Strengths (with evidence)
6. Areas for Improvement (prioritized)
7. Actionable Next Steps

Output Location:

• Primary: Console output (full report)
• Summary: Single line for orchestrator: "✅ PASS (88%) | ❌ FAIL - [reason]"

Example Summary:

```

✅ PASS (88.85%) - Good tier

Constitution: PASS | Technical: 82% | Pedagogical: 92% | Writing: 90% | Structure: 95% | AI-First: 90%

Ready for publication with minor improvements.

```

6. Error Protocol

Tool Unavailable:

| Tool | Fallback |

|------|----------|

| Read | Cannot evaluate - report error |

| Grep | Manual pattern search in content |

| Constitution file missing | BLOCK - cannot evaluate without constitution |

Graceful Degradation:

```

IF constitution.md unavailable

→ STOP - "Cannot evaluate without constitutional reference"

IF rubric-details.md unavailable

→ Use embedded summary criteria (less precise)

→ Mark output as "PARTIAL - rubric unavailable"

```

Error Reporting:

```

❌ ERROR: [Resource] unavailable

Impact: Cannot complete [specific check]

Recommendation: Ensure [file] exists at [path]

```

Human Escalation:

Escalate to human when:

• [ ] Constitutional violation is ambiguous
• [ ] Content type doesn't match any known pattern
• [ ] Scoring criteria conflict with each other

---

Constitution Alignment: v4.0.1 emphasizing:

• Principle 1: Specification Primacy ("Specs Are the New Syntax")
• Section IIa: Panaversity 4-Layer Teaching Method
• Section IIb: AI Three Roles Framework (bidirectional co-learning)
• 8 Foundational Principles: Including Factual Accuracy, Coherent Structure, Progressive Complexity
• Nine Pillars (Section I): AI CLI, Markdown, MCP, AI-First IDEs, Cross-Platform, TDD, SDD, Composable Skills, Cloud-Native

Evaluate educational content across 6 weighted categories to ensure:

• Technical correctness and code quality
• Effective pedagogical design and learning outcomes
• Clear, accessible writing for target audience
• Proper structure and organization
• AI-augmented learning principles (learning WITH AI, not generating FROM AI)
• Constitution compliance and standards adherence

Invoke this evaluation framework at multiple checkpoints:

1. During Iterative Drafting - Mid-process quality checks to catch issues early
2. After Lesson/Chapter Completion - Comprehensive evaluation before moving to next content unit
3. On-Demand Review Requests - When user explicitly asks for quality assessment
4. Before Validation Phase - Part of the SDD Validate phase workflow for final sign-off

Scoring System

Multi-Tier Assessment:

• Excellent (90-100%) - Exceeds standards, exemplary quality
• Good (75-89%) - Meets all standards with minor improvements possible
• Needs Work (50-74%) - Meets some standards but requires significant revision
• Insufficient (<50%) - Does not meet minimum standards, requires major rework

Weighted Categories

The evaluation uses 6 categories with the following weights:

| Category | Weight | Focus Area |

|----------|--------|------------|

| Technical Accuracy | 30% | Code correctness, type hints, explanations, examples work as stated |

| Pedagogical Effectiveness | 25% | Show-then-explain pattern, progressive complexity, quality exercises |

| Writing Quality | 20% | Readability (Flesch-Kincaid 8-10), voice, clarity, grade-level appropriateness |

| Structure & Organization | 15% | Learning objectives met, logical flow, appropriate length, transitions |

| AI-First Teaching | 10% | Co-learning partnership demonstrated, Three Roles Framework shown, Nine Pillars aligned, Specs-As-Syntax emphasized |

| Constitution Compliance | Pass/Fail | Must pass all non-negotiable constitutional requirements including Nine Pillars alignment (gate) |

Total Weighted Score Calculation:

```

Final Score = (Technical × 0.30) + (Pedagogical × 0.25) + (Writing × 0.20) +

(Structure × 0.15) + (AI-First × 0.10)

```

Constitution Compliance: Must achieve "Pass" status. If "Fail," content cannot proceed regardless of weighted score.

Step 1: Prepare Context

Before evaluation, gather:

• Content being evaluated (lesson.md, chapter.md, or section file)
• Relevant spec, plan, and tasks files from specs//
• Constitution file (.specify/memory/constitution.md)
• Learning objectives and success criteria for the content unit
• Output style template used (.claude/output-styles/lesson.md or similar)

Step 2: Load Detailed Rubric

Read the detailed tier criteria for each category:

```

Read: references/rubric-details.md

```

This file contains specific criteria defining Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Insufficient for each of the 6 categories.

Step 3: Evaluate Constitution Compliance First

Constitution compliance is a gate - if content fails constitutional requirements, it cannot proceed.

Use the constitution checklist:

```

Read: references/constitution-checklist.md

```

Assess all non-negotiable principles and requirements. Mark as Pass or Fail with specific violations noted.

If Constitution Compliance = Fail: Stop evaluation and report violations immediately. Content must be revised before proceeding.

If Constitution Compliance = Pass: Continue to weighted category evaluation.

Step 4: Score Each Weighted Category

For each of the 5 weighted categories (Technical Accuracy, Pedagogical Effectiveness, Writing Quality, Structure & Organization, AI-First Teaching):

1. Review specific criteria from rubric-details.md for that category
2. Assess content against criteria for each tier
3. Assign tier (Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Insufficient) with score range
4. Record specific evidence - Quote examples, note line numbers, cite specific passages
5. Provide improvement recommendations - Concrete, actionable feedback

Step 5: Calculate Weighted Score

Apply the weighted formula:

```

Final Score = (Technical × 0.30) + (Pedagogical × 0.25) + (Writing × 0.20) +

(Structure × 0.15) + (AI-First × 0.10)

```

Convert tier scores to numeric values:

• Excellent: 95%
• Good: 82%
• Needs Work: 62%
• Insufficient: 40%

(Or use specific numeric score within tier range if warranted)

Step 6: Generate Evaluation Report

Use the structured evaluation template:

```

Read: references/evaluation-template.md

```

Complete all sections:

1. Executive Summary - Overall score, tier, pass/fail status
2. Category Scores - Table showing each category score, tier, and weight contribution
3. Detailed Findings - Evidence-based assessment for each category
4. Strengths - What the content does well (specific examples)
5. Areas for Improvement - Prioritized list of issues with recommendations
6. Constitution Compliance Status - Pass/Fail with specific principle checks
7. Actionable Next Steps - Concrete tasks to improve content

Step 7: Communicate Results

Present evaluation report with:

• Clear verdict - Pass/Fail and overall quality tier
• Evidence-based feedback - Specific quotes and line numbers
• Prioritized improvements - Most critical issues first
• Encouragement - Acknowledge strengths and effort

Be Objective and Evidence-Based

• Quote specific passages from content being evaluated
• Reference line numbers or section headers
• Compare against objective rubric criteria, not subjective preference
• Use concrete metrics where possible (word count, readability scores, etc.)

Focus on Standards, Not Perfection

• Content rated "Good" (75-89%) is publication-ready with minor polish
• Content rated "Excellent" (90-100%) exceeds standards but is not required
• Focus improvements on moving "Needs Work" → "Good" before "Good" → "Excellent"

Provide Actionable Feedback

• Don't just say "improve clarity" - specify which sentences are unclear and suggest rewrites
• Don't just say "add examples" - suggest specific example types that would help
• Prioritize recommendations: critical (blocking issues) → important → nice-to-have

Respect the Learning Journey

• Recognize iterative improvement - drafts evolve through multiple passes
• Celebrate progress and strengths
• Frame criticism constructively as opportunities for growth
• Remember: the goal is helping create excellent educational content, not gatekeeping

Minimum Acceptance Threshold

• Constitution Compliance: MUST be Pass (gate)
• Overall Weighted Score: MUST be ≥ 75% (Good or better)
• No category below 50%: Each individual category must achieve at least "Needs Work" tier

Recommended for Publication

• Constitution Compliance: Pass
• Overall Weighted Score: ≥ 82% (Good tier)
• Technical Accuracy: ≥ 75% (Good tier) - Critical for credibility
• Pedagogical Effectiveness: ≥ 75% (Good tier) - Critical for learning outcomes

Exemplary Content (Optional)

• Overall Weighted Score: ≥ 90% (Excellent tier)
• At least 3 categories at Excellent tier
• No categories below Good tier

Scenario 1: Mid-Draft Check (Iterative)

Context: Writer requests feedback on partial draft

Approach:

• Focus on foundational issues (structure, learning objectives, concept scaffolding)
• Flag critical issues early (technical errors, constitution violations)
• Provide guidance for remaining sections
• Don't expect polish - prioritize content completeness and correctness

Scenario 2: Completion Review

Context: Writer believes content is complete and ready for validation

Approach:

• Conduct full evaluation across all 6 categories
• Calculate final weighted score
• Check all quality gates and thresholds
• Provide comprehensive report with prioritized improvements
• Determine if content meets publication standards

Scenario 3: Pre-Validation Quality Gate

Context: Content enters SDD Validate phase

Approach:

• Verify constitution compliance (gate)
• Confirm minimum acceptance threshold (≥75%)
• Validate all category scores meet minimums
• Generate pass/fail recommendation with evidence
• If fails gate: return to implementation with specific revision tasks

Scenario 4: On-Demand Spot Check

Context: User asks "How's this looking?" for specific section

Approach:

• Evaluate relevant categories for that section (may not be all 6)
• Provide quick feedback on specific concerns
• Highlight any critical issues
• Suggest improvements without full formal report
• Use judgment on depth based on context

This skill includes detailed reference materials:

• references/rubric-details.md - Comprehensive tier criteria for all 6 categories with specific indicators
• references/constitution-checklist.md - Pass/Fail checklist for constitutional compliance evaluation
• references/evaluation-template.md - Structured template for consistent evaluation reports

Load these references as needed during evaluation to ensure consistency and thoroughness.

---

User Request: "Please evaluate this lesson draft: apps/learn-app/docs/chapter-3/lesson-2.md"

Evaluation Process:

1. Read content: apps/learn-app/docs/chapter-3/lesson-2.md
2. Load context: spec, plan, constitution, learning objectives
3. Check constitution compliance: references/constitution-checklist.md

- Result: Pass (all non-negotiables met)

1. Load detailed rubric: references/rubric-details.md
2. Evaluate each category:

- Technical Accuracy: Good (80%) - Code works, minor type hint gaps

- Pedagogical Effectiveness: Excellent (92%) - Strong scaffolding, great exercises

- Writing Quality: Good (78%) - Clear writing, minor readability improvements

- Structure & Organization: Good (85%) - Good flow, all LOs met

- AI-First Teaching: Needs Work (65%) - AI exercises present but weak guidance

1. Calculate weighted score:

- (80×0.30) + (92×0.25) + (78×0.20) + (85×0.15) + (65×0.10) = 81.55%

- Final Tier: Good (81.55%)

1. Load template: references/evaluation-template.md
2. Generate report with findings, strengths, improvements, next steps
3. Communicate verdict: "Good (81.55%) - Ready for publication with minor improvements to AI-First Teaching section"

---

Use this skill to maintain consistent, objective, evidence-based quality standards for all educational content.