course-design-review

name	course-design-review
description	Use when reviewing course materials, slides, or teaching content - identifies 'old cadre lecture' problems (cognitive overload, lack of authenticity, AI-heavy content) and provides actionable improvements based on practice-first teaching principles.
version	1.0

Course Design Review

Overview

This skill reviews course materials using the "Practice-First Teaching" methodology. Core principle: Effective teaching = 1 core point × real cases × actionable tasks. Reviews identify common pitfalls and provide specific improvements.

When to Use

Trigger conditions:

• "Review this course/slides/lesson plan"
• "Check the quality of my teaching materials"
• "What's wrong with this course design"
• "Help me improve this lesson"
• Reviewing any PPT, markdown course outline, or teaching script

Do NOT use for:

• Technical documentation review (use code review skills)
• Marketing content (different principles apply)
• One-off presentations without learning objectives

Quick Reference

Check	Pass Criteria	Common Fail
Core Point	≤1 per section	5+ concepts crammed
Structure Depth	≤1 level branching	3-level nested headings
Real Examples	Every concept has one	All AI-generated abstractions
Actionable Task	Learner can do it after	Only passive listening
Emotional Temperature	Has stories/struggles	Cold encyclopedia style

Review Framework: The 5 Death Traps

Trap 1: Cognitive Overload

Symptoms:

• More than 3 key points per section
• Dense text slides with no breathing room
• Jumping between unrelated concepts

Diagnosis questions:

• "If learner remembers only ONE thing, what is it?"
• "Can this be split into multiple sessions?"

Fix: Apply the 1-3 Rule — 1 core point, max 3 supporting points per section.

Trap 2: Abstract Emptiness

Symptoms:

• Opens with definitions instead of problems
• No screenshots, no real products shown
• Examples are hypothetical ("imagine if...")

Diagnosis questions:

• "Can I see this in a real product right now?"
• "Is there a screenshot or demo?"

Fix: Apply Concreteness First — Show the real thing before explaining the concept.

❌ "A database stores structured data in tables..."
✅ (Show Zotero's database) "See these 18,000 records? This is a database."

Trap 3: AI Flavor Overload

Symptoms:

• Every slide sounds like ChatGPT wrote it
• Perfect grammar but zero personality
• Comprehensive but soulless

Diagnosis questions:

• "Which sentence shows the instructor's real experience?"
• "Where's the struggle story?"

Fix: Apply AI+Human Golden Ratio:

Page 1: AI-generated framework (skeleton)
Page 2: Your real screenshot/story (flesh)
Page 3: AI-generated next concept
Page 4: Your hands-on demo
...

Trap 4: Structure Spaghetti

Symptoms:

• Headings go 3+ levels deep (1.2.3.a.i)
• Learner can't tell where they are
• No clear "we're done with X, now Y" transitions

Diagnosis questions:

• "Can I draw this structure in 30 seconds?"
• "Does each section have a clear exit point?"

Fix: Apply Flat Structure Rule:

✅ Good:
Section 1
  - Point A
  - Point B
  - Point C
Section 2
  ...

❌ Bad:
Section 1
  1.1 Subsection
    1.1.1 Sub-subsection
      1.1.1.a Detail

Trap 5: Passive Consumption

Symptoms:

• No tasks for learners to complete
• "Any questions?" is the only interaction
• Learner leaves with knowledge but no ability

Diagnosis questions:

• "What can the learner DO after this section?"
• "Is there a task repo they can practice with?"

Fix: Apply Task-First Design:

Before: "Learn about databases" → "Learn about types" → "Learn about SQL"
After: "Create your first database" → "Connect it to your app" → "Build CRUD operations"

Review Output Format

Structure your review as follows:

## Course Review: [Course Name]

### Overall Score: [A/B/C/D/F]

### Death Trap Analysis

| Trap | Severity | Evidence |
|------|----------|----------|
| Cognitive Overload | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [specific finding] |
| Abstract Emptiness | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [specific finding] |
| AI Flavor Overload | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [specific finding] |
| Structure Spaghetti | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [specific finding] |
| Passive Consumption | 🔴/🟡/🟢 | [specific finding] |

### Top 3 Issues (Priority Order)

1. **[Issue]**: [Evidence] → **Fix**: [Specific action]
2. **[Issue]**: [Evidence] → **Fix**: [Specific action]
3. **[Issue]**: [Evidence] → **Fix**: [Specific action]

### What's Working Well
- [Positive finding 1]
- [Positive finding 2]

### Recommended Structure Revision
[If structure needs major changes, provide new outline]

### Quick Wins (Do These First)
- [ ] [Immediate improvement 1]
- [ ] [Immediate improvement 2]
- [ ] [Immediate improvement 3]

Severity Levels

Level	Meaning	Action
🔴 Critical	Learners will fail/leave	Must fix before teaching
🟡 Warning	Reduces effectiveness	Fix if time permits
🟢 Good	Meets standards	No action needed

Meta-Anti-Empty Check

After reviewing content, apply three meta-questions:

Meta (Understand the essence)

• "What is the REAL learning objective here?"
• "What assumption about learners might be wrong?"

Anti (Identify failure modes)

• "Where will learners most likely get confused?"
• "What will they forget first?"

Empty (Question necessity)

• "If we delete this section, can learners still succeed?"
• "Is this knowledge or just trivia?"

Common Mistakes in Course Design

Mistake	Why It Fails	Fix
Starting with history	Learners don't care yet	Start with the problem they'll solve
Covering all cases	Cognitive overload	Cover the 80% case deeply
Perfect slide design	Distracts from content	Simple > Beautiful
No instructor stories	Feels impersonal	Add 1 struggle story per section
Ending with Q&A only	Passive ending	End with a mini-task

The Yang-Laoshi Checklist

Before approving any course, verify:

• One core point per section — Not 5 concepts crammed together
• Real screenshots — Not just AI-generated diagrams
• Struggle stories — "This bug took me 3 hours to fix..."
• Task repository — Learner can practice immediately
• Flat structure — Max 1 level of nesting
• Concrete opening — Shows real product, not abstract definition
• Emotional temperature — Doesn't read like Wikipedia

Resources

References

• references/review-checklist.md — Detailed 50-point checklist for comprehensive review
• references/before-after-examples.md — Real examples of course improvements

Usage Examples

User: "Review this database course outline"

You:

1. Read the course materials
2. Apply the 5 Death Trap framework
3. Score each trap (🔴/🟡/🟢)
4. Identify top 3 priority issues
5. Provide specific fixes with before/after examples
6. Output in the standard review format