textbook-learning-content-review

name	textbook-learning-content-review
description	Review textbook-style Markdown learning notes for semantic usefulness. Use for concept, method, pattern, antipattern, chapter, and review notes that should explain why an idea matters, when to use it, inputs/outputs, examples, pitfalls, relationships, and self-check prompts. Do not use for narrative problem-framing notes, technical essay notes, Markdown linting, Obsidian link checks, or final pack submission gates.
metadata	{"short-description":"Textbook note semantic usefulness review"}

Purpose

Review textbook-style Markdown learning notes for semantic usefulness and application value.

The reviewed output must remain a paraphrased learning artifact, not a transcript. Do not copy long passages from the source. Prefer paraphrased explanation, compact references, and original learning structure. Use short quotations only when necessary and only within applicable copyright limits.

When to use

Use this skill when:

• reviewing one or more textbook-style notes
• a note may be definition-only, thin, mechanically summarized, or not actionable
• the user asks whether a note is useful for learning or application
• a generated textbook note type needs semantic review

Do not use when:

• the source is narrative/problem-framing
• the source is technical essay
• the task is a final pack gate
• the task is link/tag/format checking
• the task is Obsidian registration only

How to use

1. Determine each note type and apply the relevant contract from ../textbook-structured-content-workflow/references/note-type-contracts.md.
2. Review whether the note supports use, diagnosis, decision-making, and transfer.
3. Report findings for missing semantic learning value, not Markdown style alone.
4. Pass only when there are no Blocker findings and no unresolved Major findings.

Review rubric

Report findings when:

• the note only defines the term
• a method/process lists steps but not decisions enabled
• no use situation is visible
• inputs/outputs are missing
• a concept is disconnected from the source argument
• examples are missing where abstraction would be unclear
• pitfalls/misuse are missing
• practice questions are generic
• links exist but the semantic relationship is unclear

Severity

• Blocker: note is definition-only, misleading, or cannot support application.
• Major: key context, use condition, input/output, pitfall, or source-argument link is missing.
• Minor: examples, links, or prompts need improvement but core learning value exists.

Required output

## Textbook Learning Content Review

- Decision: pass | fail
- Scope:
- Note type contract applied:
- Notes reviewed:

### Finding N
- Severity: blocker | major | minor
- Path:
- Heading:
- Failed criterion:
- Why it harms learning:
- Required fix:
- Example of acceptable improvement:

## Pass criteria

- No blocker findings.
- No unresolved major findings.
- The note supports the sentence:
  "In my project, I would use this idea when ___, with inputs ___,
  to decide or detect ___, while watching out for ___."