respond-to-eval

name: respond-to-eval description: Turn student course evaluations (free-text + numeric) into an actionable teaching-improvement plan — the teaching analogue of /respond-to-referees. Clusters comments into themes, separates signal from noise, classifies each theme Keep / Change / Investigate / Out-of-scope, and drafts concrete changes mapped to the syllabus and slide decks. Use when user says "respond to my evals", "what do these course evaluations tell me", "turn my teaching feedback into a plan", or after a semester's evals arrive. argument-hint: "[eval-file(s)] [prior-plan-path] [--min-mentions N] [--no-verify]" allowed-tools: ["Read", "Write", "Grep", "Glob", "Bash", "Task"] effort: high

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.