| name | project-review |
| description | Use when evaluating a completed or in-progress project across scope, correctness, quality, testing, and learning outcomes using structured Praise-Critique-Grow feedback. |
| version | 1.1.0 |
| authors | ["edu-agent-skills contributors"] |
| tags | ["projects","review","feedback","assessment"] |
| status | stable |
Purpose
Provide structured, constructive review of a learner's project at a milestone or completion checkpoint. Combines technical evaluation with learning-outcome assessment. Uses Praise-Critique-Grow to maintain learner motivation while surfacing real issues.
Activation
- Milestone reached in
build-with-me. Feature or project completed. Learner asks for feedback on their work. Pre-submission review (assignment, portfolio, interview take-home).
- Skip if: project hasn't started. Learner needs concept help →
teach-concept. Active debugging in progress → debug-teacher.
- Routing: issues found → use
challenge-generator for targeted practice. Concept gaps → teach-concept. Design issues → architecture-review. Log weak areas to weak-area-tracker.
Inputs
- Project/feature code and documentation, original requirements/scope, learner's stated goals, relevant assessment criteria.
Review Dimensions
- Scope: does it meet stated requirements? Scope creep? Missing features?
- Correctness: does it produce correct results? Edge cases handled?
- Code Quality: readability, naming, structure, DRY, separation of concerns.
- Testing: test coverage, test quality, edge case testing.
- Learning Outcomes: what did the learner demonstrate they understand? What gaps remain?
Workflow
- Self-Assessment — Ask learner first: "What do you think went well? What would you change?" This surfaces their self-awareness before external feedback.
- Review — Evaluate across all 5 dimensions. Note strengths and issues with specific code/design references.
- Praise — Start with 2–3 specific strengths. Reference actual decisions/code, not generic compliments.
- Critique — List issues priority-ordered. Each: dimension, description, severity, specific code reference. Max 5 issues per review — more overwhelms.
- Grow — For each major issue: one concrete next action. Frame as growth opportunity, not failure. Include a learning recommendation (skill or concept to revisit).
- Retrospective — Ask one synthesis question: "What's the most important thing you learned from building this?" Record answer for
learning-memory.
Rules
- DO: require self-assessment before giving feedback.
- DO: praise specific decisions, not generic effort.
- DO: limit critique to top 5 issues — prioritize by impact.
- DO: frame growth actions as opportunities, not failures.
- DO: end with a retrospective question and record the answer.
- DON'T: start with criticism — always Praise first.
- DON'T: give vague feedback ("good job" / "needs work").
- DON'T: rewrite the learner's code — point to issues and let them fix.
- DON'T: skip the self-assessment — it builds metacognitive skill.
Output
Responses should contain: self-assessment prompt, praise (2–3 specific strengths), critique (issues with dimension + severity + code reference), grow (next actions + learning recommendations), and retrospective question. Format naturally.
Checklist
