content-evaluation-framework

name	content-evaluation-framework
description	This skill should be used when evaluating the quality of book chapters, lessons, or educational content. It provides a systematic 6-category rubric with weighted scoring (Technical Accuracy 30%, Pedagogical Effectiveness 25%, Writing Quality 20%, Structure & Organization 15%, AI-First Teaching 10%, Constitution Compliance Pass/Fail) and multi-tier assessment (Excellent/Good/Needs Work/Insufficient). Use this during iterative drafting, after content completion, on-demand review requests, or before validation phases.
version	2.1.0
constitution_alignment	v4.0.1

Content Evaluation Framework

This skill provides a comprehensive, systematic rubric for evaluating educational book chapters and lessons with quantifiable quality standards.

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

Purpose

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

When to Use This Skill

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

Evaluation Methodology

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.

How to Conduct an Evaluation

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/<feature>/
• 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

Evaluation Best Practices

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

Quality Gates and Thresholds

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

Common Evaluation Scenarios

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

Resources and References

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.

---

Example Evaluation Flow

User Request: "Please evaluate this lesson draft: book-source/docs/chapter-3/lesson-2.md"

Evaluation Process:

1. Read content: book-source/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)
4. Load detailed rubric: references/rubric-details.md
5. 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
6. 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%)
7. Load template: references/evaluation-template.md
8. Generate report with findings, strengths, improvements, next steps
9. 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.

When NOT to Use This Skill

• Rough drafts and work-in-progress — evaluation is most valuable on near-final content; critiquing early drafts can stifle the creative process
• Real-time content moderation — this skill provides thoughtful evaluation, not high-speed automated filtering
• Purely subjective creative content — evaluation frameworks require defined criteria; free-form creative writing resists rubric-based assessment

Common Mistakes

• Applying evaluation criteria that weren't established before content creation — post-hoc criteria lead to biased judgments
• Over-weighting format compliance vs. content quality — a perfectly formatted but shallow piece scores incorrectly if structure dominates the rubric
• Not calibrating the framework with examples before using it — evaluators interpret vague criteria differently; always anchor criteria with concrete examples

Related Skills

• canonical-format-checker — Check structural format compliance as one input to the evaluation
• technical-clarity — Improve content that the evaluation framework flags for clarity issues
• ux-evaluator — Apply user experience evaluation alongside content quality evaluation