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.