| name | paperlab_student_readability |
| description | Review and revise PaperLab book chapters so students can learn efficiently.
Use for learning-objective alignment, prerequisite checks, worked examples,
summaries, exercises, glossary consistency, and chapter-level pedagogy.
|
PaperLab Student Readability
When to Use
USE WHEN: improving a PaperLab textbook or course book for student learning,
especially after the scientific content is broadly complete. This skill checks
whether a chapter is easy to enter, easy to follow, and useful for exam and
exercise preparation.
DO NOT USE for: journal-paper conciseness, renderer debugging, or technical
validation of NeqSim calculations. Pair with paperlab_scientific_traceability_audit
for scientific claims and paperlab_book_typesetting_release for final formats.
Reader Model
Assume the primary reader is a student who:
- knows basic petroleum engineering terminology but not every industrial acronym,
- learns best from worked examples and recurring case threads,
- needs to connect equations, figures, and decisions,
- will use the book for exercises, exams, and project work,
- may be reading in English as a second language.
Chapter Checklist
For each chapter, check:
- Learning objectives: 3 to 7 objectives, written as observable actions.
Prefer verbs such as calculate, compare, explain, diagnose, design, and
evaluate. Avoid vague objectives such as "understand processing".
- Prerequisites: identify any concepts that must already be known. If a
prerequisite is not covered earlier, add a short bridge paragraph or a cross-reference.
- Concept sequence: introduce physical intuition before equations, and
equations before computational examples.
- Worked examples: include at least one compact worked example in core
engineering chapters. The example should state inputs, method, result,
interpretation, and common mistakes.
- Figures as teaching objects: each non-cover figure should be followed by
discussion using
figure-discussion.
- Exercises: include a mix of conceptual questions, calculation questions,
and short design-decision questions.
- Summary: close with decision-useful takeaways, not a table of contents in prose.
- Glossary and acronyms: define important first-use terms and keep names
consistent with the book glossary and acronym list.
Readability Rubric
Grade each chapter as ready, minor-revision, or major-revision.
| Area | Ready Signal | Revision Signal |
|---|
| Objectives | Objectives map to sections and exercises | Objectives are broad or missing |
| Flow | Reader can follow the chapter without lecture context | Chapter reads like stitched slides |
| Examples | Examples show inputs, method, result, meaning | Examples give numbers without interpretation |
| Language | Sentences are direct and jargon is introduced | Acronyms and compressed phrases dominate |
| Student Use | Chapter supports exercises and exam preparation | Chapter is mainly descriptive |
Output Pattern
Write a short chapter review with:
## Student Readability Review: <chapter>
- Status: ready | minor-revision | major-revision
- Best teaching asset: <figure/example/section>
- Main student friction: <one sentence>
- Required edits:
- <edit 1>
- <edit 2>
- Optional polish:
- <edit 3>
Common Fixes
- Replace long historical background with a short "why this matters" paragraph.
- Move dense slide coverage lists to an appendix or review artifact.
- Add a small numerical example after a new equation.
- Convert a generic summary into three to five engineering takeaways.
- Add a short "common mistake" note after unit-sensitive calculations.
