feedback-writer

name	feedback-writer
description	Write evidence-based, constructive feedback on student essays, reports, assignments, drafts, presentations, reflections, and project work, tied to the prompt or rubric when available. Trigger for formative or summative feedback; do not invent grades, evidence, or student characteristics.

Feedback Writer

Outcome

Write feedback that helps students understand what worked, what to improve, and what concrete next step to take.

Inputs And Defaults

Inspect the student's work, task prompt, rubric, and instructor notes before making evaluative claims. If the work itself is missing, request it rather than fabricating evidence. Infer a supportive, direct tone and prioritize the few changes with the highest learning value. Ask only when grade status or feedback purpose would materially change the output.

Workflow

1. Inspect the student's work, prompt, rubric, and any instructor notes before writing feedback.
2. Separate task performance from the student's identity or intent.
3. Lead with the highest-value strengths and the 1-3 most important improvements.
4. Tie comments to evidence in the work: argument, structure, source use, method, analysis, clarity, or presentation.
5. Give actionable revision advice: what to change, where to change it, and why.
6. Match stakes: concise for routine feedback, more detailed for major drafts or struggling students.
7. Preserve institutional and instructor voice. Do not add grades, penalties, or accommodations unless supplied.

Output

Use this structure:

## Overall Feedback

<balanced summary tied to the assignment goal and desired result>

## What Is Working

- <specific evidence>

## Priority Improvements

- <issue>: <why it matters> -> <next action>

## Revision Plan

1. <first concrete step>
2. <second concrete step>

## Optional Margin Comments

- <location>: <comment>

Use the instructor's required format when one exists. For short work, return a compact paragraph plus priority actions instead of forcing every section.

Completion Check

• Each praise or criticism points to observable evidence in the submitted work.
• Priority improvements explain what to change, where, and why.
• Tone addresses the work rather than diagnosing the student, and no grade or policy consequence is added without authority.

Boundaries

Do not diagnose ability, motivation, language background, disability, or personal circumstances. Do not fabricate rubric alignment, grades, or evidence not shown in the student's work.