gonurture/nurture
Open-source education plugin with formative assessment and student feedback skills for AI agents: feedback that moves learners forward, assessment design, hinge questions, success criteria, peer and self-assessment, and responsive analysis of student work.
Read this when you have more than one learner's work in front of you and the question is what to do about it. Use it when given a class set, assignment or quiz results, a mark sheet or response CSV, or when asked what a class got wrong, which items were poor, who needs intervention, or what to teach next. It produces a next teaching move with a built-in check, not a report.
Read this before generating any quiz, test, task or item — assessment written item-first drifts to recall and produces a score nobody can act on. Use it when asked to build a quiz, test, exam paper, question set, retrieval practice or knowledge check, to write or fix items and distractors, or to judge whether an existing assessment measures what it claims. It produces a blueprint, items whose wrong answers are diagnostic, and a guide to what each result means.
Read this when the question is how to find out what a class is thinking during a lesson, rather than what to ask them. Use it when asked to improve questioning, check understanding mid-lesson, run a discussion, involve quieter students, or design an exit ticket or do-now — and when a teacher says the class "seems to get it" but the results say otherwise. It produces routines where every learner commits to an answer the teacher can read at a glance.
Read this when a teaching request touches assessment, feedback, or checking understanding, and you need to know which of the eight Nurture skills applies. Use it when the request is broad ("help me plan this unit", "how do I know they've got it?"), spans several skills, or when the user asks about assessment for learning or responsive teaching generally. It routes to the right skill and carries the shared Dylan Wiliam framework the others assume.
Read this before writing any comment, mark, or response on a piece of student work — your default behaviour here is the documented failure mode. Use it when asked to mark, comment on, respond to or improve feedback on student work, a submission, or a class set, and when designing a marking or feedback policy. It produces feedback that names one gap and gives the learner a specific task, instead of prose that describes the work.
Read this whenever a teacher needs to know, mid-lesson, whether the class has got it. Use it when asked for a quick check for understanding, a diagnostic or multiple-choice question, an exit-ticket question, or when someone needs to decide between moving on and reteaching. It produces a single item where every wrong answer names a specific misconception, plus the plan for what to do at each result.
Read this when learners are going to assess work — their own or each other's — because unstructured peer feedback reliably degrades into praise and personal comment. Use it when asked about peer review, peer marking, self-assessment, reflection prompts, metacognition or student ownership, and when a teacher's feedback workload is the real constraint. It produces a scripted protocol with explicit criteria, a constrained response format, and allocated time to act on it.
Read this when a task needs a stated standard — feedback, peer assessment and self-assessment all fail silently without one. Use it when asked for learning objectives, lesson aims, WALT/WILF, success criteria, a rubric or mark scheme for learners, or a checklist for a task, and when feedback has nowhere to attach because no standard was ever shared. It produces a decontextualised learning intention, 3–5 learner-checkable criteria, and the exemplar activity that makes them mean anything.