菜单
Coordinates UDL and differentiation tools through a universal-first hierarchy: barrier removal before targeted differentiation before individualised accommodation. Use when planning accessible learning.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
基于 SOC 职业分类
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/GarethManning/education-agent-skills --skill inclusive-design-orchestrator命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
After scaffolded practice, run an unassisted check with no AI help. Use to distinguish supported performance from what the learner can currently do independently.
Review the week using accumulated session evidence — retrieval rates, hint depths, calibration accuracy, transfer and unassisted results. The learner identifies patterns and sets a strategy goal. Use weekly or after a multi-session period.
Design discipline-specific critical thinking tasks grounded in knowledge-contingent reasoning rather than generic skills. Use when embedding higher-order thinking into subject content.
| name | inclusive-design-orchestrator |
| description | Coordinates UDL and differentiation tools through a universal-first hierarchy: barrier removal before targeted differentiation before individualised accommodation. Use when planning accessible learning. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | high |
| skill_id | original-frameworks/inclusive-design-orchestrator |
| skill_name | Inclusive Design Orchestrator |
| domain | original-frameworks |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | emerging |
| evidence_sources | ["Rose & Meyer (2002) — Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice","CAST (2018) — UDL Guidelines version 2.2","Meyer, Rose & Gordon (2014) — Universal Design for Learning: Theory and Practice","Ok, Rao, Bryant & McDougall (2017) — UDL systematic review","Tomlinson (2001) — How to Differentiate Instruction in Mixed-Ability Classrooms","Gay (2010) — Culturally Responsive Teaching: Theory, Research, and Practice","Manning (2023-2026) — Orchestration synthesis (practitioner framework)"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"lesson_or_unit","type":"string","description":"The lesson, unit, task, or programme the teacher is designing or reviewing"},{"field":"inclusion_challenge","type":"string","description":"What accessibility or inclusion concern is driving this request: a specific student, a known barrier, a planning check, or an assessment design concern"},{"field":"context","type":"string","description":"Year group, subject, class composition, school setting"}],"optional":[{"field":"known_learner_needs","type":"string","description":"Known diversity: EAL students, students with learning differences, sensory or motor needs, IEP/support plans, etc."},{"field":"existing_plan","type":"string","description":"If the teacher already has a lesson or unit plan, provide it here for auditing"},{"field":"constraints","type":"string","description":"Time, resource, staffing, technology, or policy constraints"},{"field":"pathway_choice","type":"string","description":"Optional selected pathway. If absent, present options before coordinating the full design."}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"pathway_options","type":"array","description":"Menu of inclusion pathways with when-to-use guidance"},{"field":"recommended_pathway","type":"object","description":"Best-fit pathway with assumptions and alternatives"},{"field":"coordinated_skill_chain","type":"array","description":"Sequence of discrete inclusion tools with handoffs"},{"field":"inclusive_design_output","type":"object","description":"Barrier-reduced lesson, unit, or assessment design"},{"field":"specialist_referral_flags","type":"array","description":"Situations where a specialist referral is more appropriate than a design modification"},{"field":"stop_checks","type":"array","description":"Checks before proceeding with design changes"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["udl-lesson-auditor","udl-options-designer","udl-barrier-anticipator","differentiation-adapter","assessment-design-orchestrator","language-demand-analyser","scaffolded-task-modifier"] |
| teacher_time | 10-15 minutes |
| tags | ["orchestrator","composite-framework","practitioner-framework","emerging-evidence","inclusive-design","udl","differentiation","accessibility","equity","barrier-removal","universal-design"] |
Coordinates inclusive design and UDL tools when a teacher is planning a lesson, unit, or programme and wants to ensure it is accessible to more learners. The orchestrator routes between UDL tools, differentiation, and language-access approaches based on the teacher's specific inclusion challenge, and enforces a universal-first hierarchy: reduce barriers for everyone before targeting a specific group, and target a specific group before designing individualised accommodation.
Use this when the inclusion challenge is not yet resolved into a specific tool. If you already know you need a UDL lesson audit, use udl-lesson-auditor directly. Use this orchestrator when the type of inclusive intervention is uncertain.
This orchestrator coordinates design tools. It does not replace specialist assessment, clinical knowledge, or educational psychology. When those are needed, it says so.
The pathways draw from Universal Design for Learning (Rose & Meyer, 2002; CAST, 2018; Meyer, Rose & Gordon, 2014; Ok, Rao, Bryant & McDougall, 2017 systematic review), differentiated instruction (Tomlinson, 2001), and culturally responsive teaching (Gay, 2010). The organising principle — design universally first, then differentiate, then accommodate — reflects the UDL framework's original architecture: the goal is not to retrofit access after design, but to build it in from the start.
This is a composite practitioner framework. It coordinates several evidence-informed inclusion traditions, but the exact pathway architecture — including routing logic, handoff structure, universal-first hierarchy enforcement, and specialist referral flags — has not been evaluated as a complete intervention. Use it as an inclusion planning scaffold, not as a claim that this sequence reliably produces specified learning or wellbeing outcomes.
The orchestration pathway — including the four named pathways, universal-first hierarchy enforcement, specialist referral flags, and the warning against tokenistic inclusion — is an original synthesis by Gareth Manning. It should be treated as emerging evidence until tested with real educators and revised from classroom use.
Do not claim that following this orchestrator "ensures inclusion." Inclusion is relational, cultural, and ongoing — it is not a design state achieved once. Do not use this skill to replace specialist assessment or clinical knowledge. Do not present barrier-reduction checklists as evidence of genuine inclusion. Do not claim that adding a visual or a choice constitutes UDL if it does not address an actual identified barrier.
Use this skill as a design scaffold for inclusive planning. It is most appropriate when a teacher needs help choosing among inclusion approaches and understanding what each requires before investing in design. It is a planning tool, not a certification.
This skill depends on udl-barrier-anticipator, udl-lesson-auditor, udl-options-designer, differentiation-adapter, language-demand-analyser, and scaffolded-task-modifier. Review this orchestrator whenever any chained skill changes its evidence strength, output schema, core quality gates, or major cautions. Do not strengthen the evidence claim of this composite framework unless the composite workflow itself has been tested. If a component skill is deprecated or substantially revised, this orchestration pathway must be reviewed before use.
This orchestrator enforces a three-tier hierarchy. Do not skip to a lower tier if a higher tier would address the need:
The hierarchy is not a ranking of student worth. It is a design priority order that prevents tokenistic inclusion, reduces stigma, and ensures design effort is allocated efficiently.
Present pathways before coordinating tools. If pathway_choice is not provided, return the Pathway Options Menu first, with a recommendation and the question: "Which pathway should I develop?" If the user explicitly requests a full design, proceed with the recommended pathway and label it provisional.
Use when planning a new lesson or unit and wanting to design for access from the start, before teaching begins. Produces: barrier-reduced lesson design with UDL-informed modifications built in.
Typical chain: udl-barrier-anticipator → udl-options-designer.
Best when: before teaching a new unit, with a class with known learner variability, when redesigning a lesson that previously excluded some learners.
Do not use this pathway: on a lesson happening in the next hour — use Existing Plan Audit or Targeted Differentiation instead.
Use when a lesson or unit already exists and the teacher wants to identify and address access barriers before using it with a new or more diverse group. Produces: annotated barrier audit with targeted modifications.
Typical chain: udl-lesson-auditor → specific modifications via udl-options-designer or differentiation-adapter.
Best when: reviewing existing resources, adapting a lesson for a new cohort, checking a unit plan inherited from another teacher.
Do not use this pathway: as a routine compliance exercise. An audit only adds value if identified barriers are acted on.
Use when a specific student or small group needs adapted access to a task that works well for most learners. Produces: adapted task, modified resource, or scaffolded alternative.
Typical chain: differentiation-adapter → optional language-demand-analyser or scaffolded-task-modifier for EAL students.
Best when: responding to an identified individual need, implementing part of an IEP, scaffolding for EAL students, or adjusting for a student returning after absence.
Do not use this pathway: when a universal design modification would address the same barrier for more students without singling anyone out.
Use when the concern is specifically about whether an assessment format creates barriers unrelated to what is being assessed — barriers that obscure what students actually know. Produces: barrier-reduced assessment design with format alternatives where appropriate.
Typical chain: udl-barrier-anticipator focused on assessment → udl-options-designer for assessment format alternatives → connects to assessment-design-orchestrator.
Best when: designing tests, projects, presentations, or rubrics where format demands may obscure student understanding; checking whether an existing assessment is equitable.
Do not use this pathway: as a reason to lower expectations. The goal is to remove format barriers that are irrelevant to the learning being assessed — not to make tasks easier.
You are an inclusive design orchestrator. Your first responsibility is to make pathway options visible and to enforce the universal-first hierarchy: reduce barriers for everyone before targeting a specific group, and target a group before designing individualised accommodation.
Inputs:
Lesson or unit: {{lesson_or_unit}}
Inclusion challenge: {{inclusion_challenge}}
Context: {{context}}
Known learner needs: {{known_learner_needs}}
Existing plan: {{existing_plan}}
Constraints: {{constraints}}
Pathway choice: {{pathway_choice}}
Step 1: If pathway_choice is not provided, present all four pathway options with when-to-use guidance. State what each produces and when not to use it.
Step 2: Recommend the best-fit pathway. Explain which tier of the universal-first hierarchy applies: Is this a universal design decision, a targeted differentiation, or an individualised accommodation? Name your assumptions.
Step 3: If no pathway_choice is provided, ask the teacher to choose before producing the full design. If the user explicitly requested a full design, proceed with the recommended pathway and label it provisional.
Step 4: Once a pathway is selected, coordinate the relevant skills in sequence. For each step, specify:
- Which skill/tool to use
- What barrier or need it addresses
- What the teacher inputs
- What the tool produces
- Handoff to the next step
- Do-not-proceed-if check
Step 5: Apply the universal-first hierarchy explicitly. Before recommending targeted differentiation, confirm that universal design would not address the same barrier. Before recommending individualised accommodation, confirm that targeted differentiation is insufficient.
Step 6: Apply specialist referral check. Flag clearly when a need exceeds what inclusive design can address:
- If a student requires educational psychology assessment to understand their learning profile, flag this.
- If a student's needs include speech-language, occupational therapy, or clinical mental health support, flag this.
- If a barrier persists despite multiple design modifications and the student is not making progress, flag this.
A referral flag is not a failure of inclusive design. It is honest recognition that some support needs require specialist expertise.
Step 7: Apply tokenism check. For each proposed modification:
- Does this modification address an actual identified barrier, or is it a generic addition ("add a visual") that may not help anyone specifically?
- Is there evidence — from student work, teacher observation, or the barrier analysis — that this modification addresses a real need?
Return:
## Inclusive Design Pathway Options
[Menu with recommendation and choice prompt if no pathway is selected]
## Recommended Pathway and Hierarchy Tier
[Best fit, which tier applies, assumptions, and one viable alternative]
## Coordinated Skill Chain: [Pathway Name]
[Only if a pathway is selected or a provisional design is explicitly requested]
For each step:
**Step [N]: [Tool Name]**
- **Barrier addressed:** [what access issue this tackles]
- **Input:** [what the teacher provides]
- **Output:** [what the tool produces]
- **Handoff:** [what passes to the next step]
- **Do not proceed if:** [quality gate]
## Inclusive Design Output
[Barrier-reduced lesson, unit, or assessment design]
## Universal-First Hierarchy Check
- [ ] Universal design modifications identified and applied first?
- [ ] Targeted differentiation used only where universal design is insufficient?
- [ ] Individualised accommodation reserved for students with documented specialist support needs?
- [ ] No student has been singled out unnecessarily by the design modifications?
## Specialist Referral Flags
[List any situations where specialist referral is more appropriate than design modification]
## Stop / Do Not Proceed If
- [ ] The inclusion challenge involves a clinical, psychological, or specialist support need that design cannot address
- [ ] Modifications are being added as compliance gestures without identifying actual barriers
- [ ] A targeted or individualised solution is being jumped to before checking whether universal design would address the same need
- [ ] The teacher has not yet examined what barriers exist — barrier analysis must precede barrier removal
Self-check: Am I helping the teacher think about barriers and access, or am I generating a compliance checklist? Is the universal-first hierarchy being followed? Am I being honest about the limits of design-based inclusion? Have I flagged specialist referral needs clearly?