Course Full Case Builder

Problem

Course inputs are often fragmented: course standards, talent-cultivation plans, legacy lesson plans, slides, cases, and policy requirements are scattered, while teachers need a coherent package they can teach from, submit, or revise. Directly filling generic templates can produce slogans, vague activities, and unverifiable evidence. course-full-case-builder-skill targets education and learning workflows by chaining course profile, objective mapping, content redesign, teaching activities, resource support, assessment evidence, innovation narrative, and editable deliverables into a closed loop for syllabi, lesson plans, teaching designs, innovation reports, case matching, Rubrics, and AI-supported activities.

How It Works and Limits

It starts with intake diagnosis, collecting course name, education level, program context, existing materials, and desired outputs. If critical details are missing, it asks up to five concise questions; if the user asks to proceed, it states assumptions and marks gaps as 待补充 or 待核验. It then routes commands such as /全案, /大纲, /教案, /创新报告, and /评价方案 to specific modules, applying workflow rules for schemas, branch logic, quality gates, and anti-fabrication checks. Generated outputs require observable objectives, executable classroom actions, and evidence-backed assessments. AI-enabled activities must specify tool role, teacher and student actions, feedback loops, and risk boundaries.

This skill is useful for planning course materials and drafting teaching documents, but it does not replace official policies, institutional facts, or academic sources. When references are absent, it should provide search directions or placeholders rather than invented citations. Submission materials still need real evidence, local institutional constraints, and reproducible data.