Respond To Eval

Respond to Evaluations

Convert a semester's course evaluations into a defensible teaching-improvement plan. Cluster free-text comments into themes, weight each theme by how many independent students raised it, classify what to do about it, and draft specific changes pointed at the syllabus and deck — so next semester's revision is a checklist, not a vibe.

Posture (echoes `/respond-to-referees`): one angry comment is not a trend, and a comment you disagree with is a signal to investigate, not a license to ignore or to auto-act. A single student's frustration may be the only one willing to say what twenty felt — frequency weights the theme, it does not gate it. Ground truth here is a process: the plan records why a theme was kept or changed, so the reasoning survives to the next round.

When to use

• End of term, when numeric scores + open-text comments land and you want a revision plan, not a mood.
• Assembling a teaching dossier / tenure file where you must show you acted on feedback.
• Mid-stream (early-semester feedback) to course-correct before the term ends.

Not for: writing the syllabus from scratch (compose with /create-lecture and a course outline), or reviewing one deck's pedagogy (use /pedagogy-review).

Inputs

• $0 — the evaluation file(s): a CSV/TSV export, .txt/.md of pasted comments, or a .pdf/.docx report.
• $1 (optional) — the prior improvement plan, so this round is a diff (did last term's changes land?).

If extraction fails or a tool is missing, ask for a plain-text export and stop.

Phases

Phase 0: Load evals + prior plan (Pre-Flight)

Read the eval file(s) and the prior plan (if given). Produce a short Pre-Flight block before clustering:

## Pre-Flight Report
**Evals loaded:** N responses (M with free-text), instrument: [name/term]
**Numeric items:** [list each scale item + mean, and the institution/department mean if present]
**Prior plan:** [path, or "none — first round"] — changes promised last term: [bullet list]
**Course artifacts in scope:** [syllabus path] · [deck(s) under Slides/ or Quarto/]

Numbers anchor the read but do not override text: a 4.2/5 with ten "I was lost by week 6" comments is a problem the mean is hiding.

Phase 1: Theme-cluster + weight by frequency

1. Split free-text into atomic comments (one student may raise several themes; one comment may belong to several themes). 2. Cluster into themes (e.g., pacing, problem-set difficulty, grading clarity, real-world relevance, office hours, prerequisite gaps). Name each theme in the instructor's words, not the student's. 3. For each theme record: mention count (distinct students), representative verbatim quote (~25 words, anonymized — strip names/identifying detail), valence (positive / negative / mixed), and numeric corroboration (which scale item, if any, moves with it). 4. Signal vs noise: a theme with < --min-mentions (default 2) distinct students is tagged low-frequency, not dropped — it carries to Phase 2 for a Keep/Investigate call. Frequency weights; it never silences.

Phase 2: Classify + propose changes

Assign each theme exactly one label (the teaching analogue of /respond-to-referees' coverage matrix):

For each Change, write a concrete revision mapped to a target: syllabus §X / Slides/LectureNN.tex slide K / a new worked example / an assessment reweighting — the same point-to-the-location discipline /respond-to-referees uses for "we added X on page Y". For Investigate, name the evidence you'll collect and the decision rule. For Out-of-scope, write the one-sentence rationale you'd stand behind in a dossier.

Disagreement is explicit and reasoned: "Students asked to drop proofs; retained because the course's stated objective is derivation fluency — added two scaffolded worked examples (LectureNN slide K) to ease the on-ramp instead" is a Keep-with-mitigation, not an Out-of-scope dismissal.

Phase 3: Save the improvement plan

Write the plan to quality_reports/teaching/YYYY-MM-DD_[course]_improvement-plan.md. Structure:

1. Header — course, term, instrument, response rate, numeric summary vs benchmark. 2. Prior-plan retrospective (if $1 given) — for each change promised last term: Landed / Partial / Not done, with the evidence from this term's evals. 3. Theme matrix — one row per theme: theme · mentions · valence · numeric corroboration · classification · target (syllabus §/deck slide) · representative quote. 4. Change list — the concrete edits, ordered by mention count then severity, each pointing at a syllabus section or deck/slide. 5. Investigate list — open questions + the evidence to collect next.

The plan is a deliverable, not a transient report, so it lives under quality_reports/teaching/ and feeds next term's $1.

Phase 3.5: Post-Flight Verification (quotes + targets)

The plan's hallucination-prone content is (a) verbatim quotes attributed to students and (b) "edit syllabus §X / LectureNN slide K" targets that must actually exist. Run the forked-verifier protocol in `.claude/rules/post-flight-verification.md`: spawn claim-verifier (context: fork) with the quotes + the eval source and the edit-targets + the syllabus/deck paths. Reconcile — a quote that isn't in the source, or a "slide K" that doesn't exist, is corrected or dropped before the plan is final. Opt-out: --no-verify (not recommended).

Output / Report

After writing the plan, surface this in your final chat message (not inside the plan file):

## Teaching-improvement summary — [course], [term]
Themes: K total — C Change · I Investigate · P Keep · O Out-of-scope
Top 3 changes (by mentions): 1) … 2) … 3) …
Open investigations: …
Prior plan: x of y promised changes landed.

If all themes are classified and every Change names a target, say All themes classified; every Change mapped to a syllabus or deck target.

Exit behavior

• A theme with no classification halts the report — there are no orphans, exactly as /respond-to-referees admits no unclassified concern.
• Read-only on the syllabus and decks: this skill plans edits and writes the plan file; it does not edit teaching materials. Apply changes deliberately afterward (with /create-lecture or direct edits).
• Numbers never auto-override text and text never auto-overrides numbers; conflicts become Investigate, not a silent winner.

Flags

• --min-mentions — distinct-student threshold below which a theme is tagged low-frequency (default 2). Lowering it surfaces more singletons; it never drops them.
• --no-verify — skip Phase 3.5 Post-Flight Verification of quotes and edit-targets. Not recommended for a dossier-bound plan.

Cross-references

• `.claude/skills/respond-to-referees/SKILL.md` — the research analogue; this skill borrows its map-classify-respond shape and "signal to investigate, not auto-act" posture.
• `.claude/skills/pedagogy-review/SKILL.md` — once a Change targets a specific deck, run pedagogy-review on it before re-teaching.
• `.claude/skills/create-lecture/SKILL.md` — to execute deck-level changes the plan proposes.
• `.claude/rules/post-flight-verification.md` — the forked-verifier protocol Phase 3.5 reuses.
• `templates/skill-template.md` — house style for skills.

What this skill does NOT do

• It does not edit the syllabus or any deck — it produces a plan; you (or /create-lecture) apply it.
• It does not compute new numeric scores or re-weight the instrument; it reads the institution's numbers as given.
• It does not identify students or attempt to de-anonymize comments — quotes are stripped of identifying detail.
• It does not auto-act on disagreement or on a single comment; both route to Investigate or a documented rationale.