curriculum-review

name	curriculum-review
description	Reviews and improves existing course curricula with gap analysis, modern content updates, and engagement optimization.
allowed-tools	Read Write Glob
metadata	{"author":"matthewhitcham","version":"1.0"}

Curriculum Review

When to Use This Skill

Use this skill when you need to:

• Audit an existing course or training program for quality and relevance
• Identify content gaps, outdated material, and engagement weak points
• Modernize a curriculum with current best practices and updated examples
• Optimize course structure for better completion rates and learning outcomes

DO NOT use this skill for creating a new course from scratch or reviewing non-educational content. This is for improving existing curricula.

---

Core Principle

A CURRICULUM REVIEW IS NOT ABOUT ADDING MORE — IT IS ABOUT IDENTIFYING WHAT IS MISSING, WHAT IS OUTDATED, AND WHAT IS KILLING ENGAGEMENT, THEN MAKING SURGICAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT RAISE COMPLETION RATES AND OUTCOMES.

---

Phase 1: Brief

Required Inputs

Input	What to Ask	Default
Course to review	"Share your current course outline, syllabus, or curriculum document."	No default — must be provided
Original goals	"What outcomes was this course designed to deliver?"	No default — must be provided
Known problems	"What feedback have you received? Where do students drop off?"	None — will assess from structure
Audience changes	"Has your target audience shifted since the course was created?"	Same audience
Completion data	"What is your current completion rate? Which modules have the lowest engagement?"	Unknown — will estimate from structure

GATE: Confirm the brief and receive the existing curriculum before proceeding.

---

Phase 2: Audit

Analyze the existing curriculum across five dimensions.

Audit Framework

## 1. Content Relevance Audit
- Which topics are still current and accurate?
- Which examples or case studies are outdated?
- What industry changes require updated content?
- Score: [1-10]

## 2. Gap Analysis
- What essential topics are missing?
- Where do students need more depth?
- What prerequisites are assumed but not taught?
- Score: [1-10]

## 3. Engagement Assessment
- Where are the longest stretches without interaction?
- Which modules lack exercises or application?
- Where is the content dense without variety?
- Score: [1-10]

## 4. Structure and Flow
- Does the sequence build logically?
- Are there difficulty spikes that could cause drops?
- Is the pacing consistent across modules?
- Score: [1-10]

## 5. Outcome Alignment
- Does each module connect to the stated course outcome?
- Are there modules that do not serve the final goal?
- Is the final outcome achievable given what is taught?
- Score: [1-10]

GATE: Present the audit findings and wait for the user to prioritize improvements.

---

Phase 3: Recommend

Create a prioritized improvement plan.

Improvement Categories

Critical (do now):

• Factually incorrect or outdated content
• Missing foundational topics that cause confusion later
• Modules with zero interaction or application

Important (do soon):

• Outdated examples that weaken credibility
• Engagement dead zones longer than 15 minutes without interaction
• Pacing issues causing difficulty spikes

Nice to have (do later):

• Additional examples or case studies
• Supplementary resources
• Visual or format upgrades

Recommendation Format

For each recommendation:

## Recommendation: [Title]
**Priority:** Critical / Important / Nice to have
**Current state:** [What exists now]
**Problem:** [Why it needs to change]
**Recommended change:** [Specific action]
**Estimated effort:** [Low / Medium / High]
**Impact on completion:** [Low / Medium / High]

---

Phase 4: Polish

1. Updated Curriculum Map

Provide a revised outline showing all changes:

• Marked additions (new content)
• Marked removals (cut content)
• Marked revisions (updated content)
• New module order if restructured

2. Implementation Roadmap

## Phase 1 (This week): Critical fixes
- [ ] [Specific action]

## Phase 2 (This month): Important improvements
- [ ] [Specific action]

## Phase 3 (This quarter): Enhancements
- [ ] [Specific action]

3. Ongoing Review Schedule

Recommend a quarterly content freshness check:

• Review examples and data for accuracy
• Check completion rate trends per module
• Survey recent graduates for feedback
• Update one module per quarter minimum

---

Example 1: Outdated Marketing Course Review

Audit finding: 40% of examples reference platforms or features that no longer exist.
Recommendation: Replace 12 case studies with current examples. Priority: Critical.
Estimated effort: Medium (8-10 hours of content updates).

Example 2: Low-Completion Coding Bootcamp

Audit finding: Module 4 has a 60% drop-off rate. Content jumps from basic to advanced with no bridge.
Recommendation: Add an intermediate exercise module between 3 and 4. Priority: Critical.
Estimated effort: High (new module creation, 15-20 hours).

---

Anti-Patterns

• Reviewing without data — gut feelings are not a curriculum review. Use completion rates, feedback, and drop-off data wherever available.
• Adding without cutting — if you add 3 modules, consider removing or merging 2. Course bloat kills completion.
• Surface-level updates — changing screenshots while ignoring structural problems wastes time.
• Ignoring the audience shift — a course built for beginners in 2020 may now attract intermediates. Adjust depth accordingly.
• Recommending a full rebuild — the goal is improvement, not replacement. Focus on highest-impact changes first.

---

Recovery

• No curriculum document provided: Ask the user to list module titles and one-sentence descriptions for each. Work from that outline.
• No completion data: Estimate engagement risk based on module length, interactivity, and content type. Flag modules over 20 minutes with no exercises.
• User wants to add everything: Force-rank recommendations by impact. Limit Phase 1 to the top 3 critical fixes.
• Course is beyond repair: If more than 70% of content needs replacement, recommend building a new course using the working 30% as a foundation rather than patching the old one.