Educator
- When to use it
- Assessments that hold up in the exam room and at moderation: an exam paper and its mark scheme checked by a script for totals that don't add up, either/or questions worth different marks, numbering that skips, parts the scheme misses or marks differently, and objectives off their weighting, then read for wording and fairness.
- Covers
- Set a fair assessment (1)
- Where you decide
- No gated loop of its own; the skills run one at a time.
- Size
- 6 skills · 0 loops
npx skilldrop-cli install --pack educator
Installs 6 skills, including core.
Other ways to install
The pack's loops too, each as an invokable skill:
npx skilldrop-cli install --loop --pack educator
In Claude Code, as a plugin (after /plugin marketplace add sananthanarayan/skilldrop):
/plugin install educator@skilldrop
Into Cursor, Kiro or another IDE:
npx skilldrop-cli install --pack educator --ide cursor
Start here: Check a test and its mark scheme before printing
Paste this into your agent:
Check my end-of-unit test (paper.docx) and its mark scheme (mark-scheme.docx) before I print it. Our grid is AO1 40%, AO2 40%, AO3 20%.
- Before you start
- Your exam paper and mark scheme as Word, Markdown or text files
- Python 3 on the machine, which the check runs on
- How to tell it worked
- exam-paper-check leads with what to fix before printing, gives each question's marks against its stated total and the paper's, lines the mark scheme up against the paper part by part, and shows marks per objective against your grid.
- If nothing happens
- If exam-paper-check does not activate, ask for it by name ("use exam-paper-check"). If your paper is a PDF, save it as Word or text first.
A typical session
When: A test, mock or assessment is written and about to go to print or to a colleague.
You bring:
- the exam paper
- its mark scheme
- your planning grid or objective weightings, if you have them
-
- You
- Give it the paper, the mark scheme and your weightings.
- You get
- What to fix before printing, the marks table, every scheme mismatch, the balance across objectives and wording problems.
- You decide
- Fix and print, or ask for corrected copies.
-
- You
- Ask for corrected copies.
- You get
- The paper and scheme corrected beside your originals, with every change listed.
You end with: A paper and mark scheme that add up and match, ready to print or moderate.
Compare Educator with another pack
Skills in this pack (1)
Included from core (5)
- brief-intake Turn raw mess — a Slack thread, meeting transcript, Jira ticket, half-written Notion page, email chain, or paragraph of free-form context — into a structured brief that the downstream skill (adr-generator, design-doc, runbook-generator, exec-summary, slide-outliner) can consume without further intake. Use whenever the user has unstructured source material and is about to invoke another skilldrop skill, or when a draft is missing the load-bearing context the next step will need. standard
- context-graph Map the decisions behind a codebase from its ADRs, RFCs and design records — each record's status and date, what supersedes or amends what, which records cite which, the files and folders each decision governs, and with git the commits that implemented it and the commits that changed each decision's code since it was made, and who made them — then answer "why is it like this?" from the record and check the record is still true. Finds supersessions only one side records, current decisions pointing at code that is gone, code that has drifted from its decision, two current decisions governing the same path, and references to records that don't exist. Use when the user asks "why do we use X", "which decisions govern this file or service", "is this ADR still current", "has the code drifted since we decided this", "are our ADRs out of date", "what was decided before I change this", wants a map of the architecture decisions, or is onboarding onto a codebase's history. standard
- council-review Convene a council of distinct senior-engineer personas (Architect, Security, Operator/SRE, Pragmatist, User-Advocate, plus optional bench seats) to deliberate a decision, design, or code change — each takes an independent stance, the genuine disagreements are surfaced as named cruxes, and a Chair issues a reconciled verdict that records dissents and states what would change the decision. The "Claude Council." Use when a choice has real tradeoffs and one reviewer's voice isn't enough: architecture decisions, risky changes before merge, RFC/design scrutiny, "should we adopt X?", rewrite-vs-refactor, or a pre-mortem. heavy
- doc-critique Review an existing document — ADR, design doc, runbook, exec summary, tech-comparison matrix, deck outline, decision log — and produce a structured critique against the same quality bars the skilldrop generators enforce. Categorizes findings by severity (blocker / major / minor / nit), points to the exact section/line, and suggests a concrete fix for each. Use when the user wants a second-pair-of-eyes review before sharing a doc, or has been handed someone else's artifact and wants to know what to push back on. heavy
- output-hygiene Review agent-written text before it ships and strip the machine artifacts it carries — invisible Unicode, non-breaking spaces, homoglyphs, harness-added provenance trailers, trailing chat closers — then flag the prose tells a script cannot catch, each quoted with a rewrite. Use when the user wants to clean up AI-generated output, asks to remove a Claude watermark, attribution footer, or "Generated with" line, wants a draft that does not read as machine-written, or needs a pre-ship hygiene pass on a document, commit message, or pasted chat answer. light