name: write-learning-sheet description: Use when writing a new learning sheet from scratch for a specific week — reads textbook sections, follows templates, and produces a single learning-sheet.typ file argument-hint: "[week-number]"
Write Learning Sheet
Week number N = $ARGUMENTS.
Inputs (read all before writing)
coursedesign/schedule.typ— find textbook sections assigned to week Ntextbook/*.md— extract ALL definitions and theorems from those sectionstemplates/week-template/N.learning-sheet.typ— start from this template (structural comments embedded)week1/1.learning-sheet.typ— canonical reference for prose quality (skip if generating week 1 itself; rely ontemplates/learning-sheet.typ+coursedesign/weekly-materials-guide.md— week 1 becomes canonical after approval)weekN/plan.md— specific requirements (if exists)week{N-1}/*— ensure NO content overlap with previous week
Output
Create weekN/N.learning-sheet.typ.
Hard Rules
- Include EVERY definition and key result (theorems for math/CS; laws, postulates, principles, governing equations for physics / engineering / empirical sciences) from assigned textbook sections
- Define before use — no forward references
- FIDS is a mindset, NOT explicit boxes
- Blog-like prose, not fragmented bullets
- No page breaks between parts (only first page has pagebreak)
- No author footnotes
Which environment to use
The template provides two parallel sets of boxed environments, same visual style:
| Course type | Box for named result | Box for justification |
|---|---|---|
| Math / CS / theory | #theorem(...)[...] |
#proof[...] |
| Physics / engineering / empirical | #keyresult(numbering: none, title: [Newton's Second Law])[...] |
#derivation[...] |
Pick one set per course (read textbook/*.md and weekN/plan.md to decide — if the source material proves things from axioms, use theorem/proof; if it states laws and derives consequences, use keyresult/derivation). The "Proof Quality" criteria in CLAUDE.md apply identically to #derivation — read key insight as physical insight, why non-trivial as what naïve picture this overturns.
Writing Craft Guide
The template (templates/week-template/N.learning-sheet.typ) tells you what goes where via structural comments. This section tells you how to write it well. Read both.
Task Box
- Open-ended: multiple reasonable approaches possible; no single "right answer" visible at first glance
- Clued by the theory: after completing the sheet, students see how this week's concepts provide a principled approach
- Self-test: can you return to this problem in the Summary? If not, redesign.
- Generate 3 candidate task framings internally, then pick the best one
Bridge
The 2 paragraphs after the task box are the most important prose in the sheet. Use Tao's "ladder of failures": the reader should feel stuck before the concept arrives, then feel relief when it's named.
Opening Prose (per Part)
The goal is to make the reader want the upcoming definition. Two craft moves:
- Terminology inventory (Bendersky): name every component of the definition informally before the formal box. If the definition has 5 parts, the prose must introduce all 5.
- "What would you try?" (Gowers): pose the question the concept answers. Show what breaks without it.
Formal Definitions & Theorems
Critical rule: every component must have been named in the preceding prose. The formal box should feel like a summary of what the reader already understands, not new information.
Worked Examples
The example should make the definition click, not just illustrate it. Use Kun's concrete-first approach: the reader should understand the concept from the example even if they skip the formal definition.
Proofs
Two anti-patterns to avoid:
- Rabbit-out-of-hat: every construction must be motivated by what a solver would naturally try
- Unmotivated key step: name the key insight before the proof body ("The trick is...")
Structure: plain-English goal → key insight callout → formal proof → remark on what would break without a hypothesis.
AI Prompts
- DEEPER (~2-3 per Part): escalate in difficulty within a Part
- BROADER (~1 per Part): connect to real world or frontier research
- Each must be directly copy-pasteable into an AI chat
Summary
Use Aaronson's "ceiling-hitting": celebrate what this week's model can do, then show its limit as the teaser for next week.
Advanced Techniques (reference — use when natural)
| Technique | When to use | Example from week 1 |
|---|---|---|
| Ladder of failures (Tao) | Bridge and Part transitions | "You might try parsing manually... but this gets messy fast" |
| Proof as algorithm (Gowers) | Deeper Mechanics subsections | "Put yourself in the machine's place" |
| Ceiling-hitting (Aaronson) | Summary "What's next?" | "Are all languages regular? No." |
| Confession of confusion (Kun) | Before complex definitions/proofs | "This looks intimidating, but the idea is simple..." |
| Structural metaphors (Aaronson) | When a real-world system maps 1:1 | "automatic door = DFA with two states" |
After Writing
Compile with typst compile weekN/N.learning-sheet.typ to verify no Typst errors.