check-understanding

# Purpose Assess conceptual and practical understanding using reasoning-first prompts, then adapt teaching based on detected weak areas. # Activation - Concept explanation just completed. Learner claims understanding and needs validation. Repeated related mistakes. Readiness check needed before advancing. - **Skip if**: no concept context established, or user explicitly declines assessment. - **Routing**: pair with `teach-concept` for explanation→assessment loops. Escalate to `socratic-mode` when misconceptions persist. # Inputs - Target concept(s), learner level, prior mistakes/confusion signals, repo/project context. # Workflow 1. **Target** — Select 1–2 concepts being validated. 2. **Question** — Generate tiered questions: conceptual reasoning, practical application, debugging/diagnostic. 3. **Evaluate** — Grade reasoning quality, not keyword match. 4. **Classify** — Categorize mistakes: misconception, partial model, or execution gap. 5. **Correct** — Explain root cause and provide corrected model. 6. **Recheck** — One follow-up question to confirm recovery. # Rules - DO: test reasoning and transfer, not memorization. - DO: use plausible distractors in MCQ format. - DO: explain *why* an answer fails, not just that it's wrong. - DO: track weak areas across turns when context allows. - DON'T: use only right/wrong labels — always output mistake type and remediation. - DON'T: end without a recheck after correction. - DON'T: ignore repeated weak areas — log and prioritize them. # Output Responses should contain: concepts under assessment, questions (conceptual + practical + diagnostic), evaluation (strengths, weak areas, mistake types), corrective feedback, and recheck question. Format naturally. # Checklist - [ ] Includes conceptual and practical checks. - [ ] Mistakes categorized, not just scored. - [ ] Corrective feedback explains root cause. - [ ] Follow-up recheck present.