project-review

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

1. Self-Assessment — Ask learner first: "What do you think went well? What would you change?" This surfaces their self-awareness before external feedback.
2. Review — Evaluate across all 5 dimensions. Note strengths and issues with specific code/design references.
3. Praise — Start with 2–3 specific strengths. Reference actual decisions/code, not generic compliments.
4. Critique — List issues priority-ordered. Each: dimension, description, severity, specific code reference. Max 5 issues per review — more overwhelms.
5. Grow — For each major issue: one concrete next action. Frame as growth opportunity, not failure. Include a learning recommendation (skill or concept to revisit).
6. 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

• Self-assessment requested before external feedback.
• Praise references specific code/decisions.
• Critique limited to top 5 issues, priority-ordered.
• Retrospective question asked and answer recorded.