Prompt Library

You are an instructional designer. Write 6–8 course learning outcomes for a [level] course on [topic] in [program/context].

Constraints:
- Outcomes must be measurable and start with an action verb (Bloom’s taxonomy).
- Include a mix of levels (at least: 2 Apply/Analyze, 1 Evaluate/Create).
- Each outcome must be assessable in an online course.
- Avoid vague verbs (understand, learn, know, become familiar).

For each outcome, provide:
1) Outcome statement (learner-centered)
2) Bloom level
3) 1 suggested assessment evidence (e.g., quiz item type, artifact, performance task)
4) Any assumptions/notes

Course constraints: [constraints]

Rewrite the following objectives so they are measurable, learner-centered, and assessable.

Inputs:
- Course level: [course level]
- Assessment types available: [assessment types available]
- Current objectives (verbatim):
[objective list]

Output a table with columns:
A) Original objective
B) Problem (why it’s not measurable)
C) Revised measurable objective
D) Bloom level
E) Example assessment evidence (specific artifact/performance)

Rules:
- Keep the meaning and scope (don’t inflate rigor).
- One objective = one observable performance.
- If an objective is actually a topic, convert it into a performance.

Create aligned module learning objectives (MLOs) for each module and map them to the course learning outcomes (CLOs).

CLOs:
[CLOs]

Modules (with topics/activities if known):
[module list]

Deliverables:
1) For each module: 3–5 MLOs written as measurable, learner-centered statements.
2) A mapping table showing which CLO(s) each MLO supports.
3) Identify: (a) CLOs with weak coverage, (b) modules with redundant objectives, (c) any objectives that are not realistically assessable online.

Keep MLOs appropriately scoped to a single module.

Write learning objectives for the following target skill/behavior: [skill/behavior].

Context: [context]
Evidence available (what learners can submit/record/show): [evidence]

Output:
- 3 psychomotor objectives (performance/skill)
- 3 affective objectives (values/attitudes/professionalism)

For each objective include:
1) Objective statement
2) Domain + level (e.g., Simpson/Krathwohl)
3) Observable evidence (what the learner will do/submit)
4) A brief note on how to assess it fairly online (including accommodation-friendly options).

Generate a course alignment map using the inputs below.

Course outcomes:
[outcomes]

Assessments (graded items) with brief description:
[assessments]

Learning activities / content (by module if possible):
[activities]

Output a matrix where each outcome has:
- Aligned assessments (primary + secondary)
- Aligned learning activities/content
- Notes on alignment strength (Strong/Moderate/Weak) with a 1–2 sentence justification
- Gaps (outcome not assessed) and over-assessment (too many assessments for one outcome)

Then recommend 3 concrete alignment improvements.

You are preparing a course for a Quality Matters review. Rewrite the following learning objectives to meet QM Standard 2.1.

Course context (audience, modality, key assessments):
[course context]

Objectives to rewrite (verbatim):
[objective list]

For each objective provide:
1) Revised objective (learner-centered, measurable)
2) What makes it measurable (observable behavior + conditions/criteria if needed)
3) Suggested evidence/assessment artifact
4) Any ambiguity you had to resolve (ask a clarifying question if needed).

Review these objectives for rigor and appropriateness for a [level] course.

Objectives:
[objective list]

Constraints: [constraints]

Output:
- A quick diagnosis (too low / too high / mismatched)
- For each objective: recommended Bloom level, revised verb/statement, and a brief justification
- If an objective is not assessable online, propose a feasible alternative evidence artifact.

Add conditions and criteria to make these objectives assessable.

Performance context (tools, constraints, modality): [performance context]

Objectives:
[objective list]

For each objective, provide:
- Revised objective with condition (given/using/within) and criterion (accuracy/quality/threshold/time)
- A suggested rubric or checklist indicator that matches the criterion

Keep criteria realistic for an online course.

Create an analytic rubric for a [assignment type].

Parameters:
- Number of criteria: [N criteria]
- Performance levels: [N levels] (name them, e.g., Exemplary/Proficient/Developing/Beginning)
- Aligned learning objectives: [learning objectives]

Requirements:
- Each criterion must be observable and specific (avoid vague terms like 'good' or 'clear' without descriptors).
- Provide level descriptors that show progression.
- Include point values and total points.
- Add 2 common student pitfalls and how the rubric prevents them.

Output as a table suitable for an LMS rubric.

Write 3 discussion board prompts for a [course level] online course on [topic] based on this resource: [reading/resource].

Each prompt must include:
- A realistic scenario or decision
- A required claim + evidence structure (cite the resource + one external credible source)
- A concrete interaction task (e.g., challenge an assumption, propose an alternative, or test a peer’s claim with a counterexample)
- A short grading mini-rubric (3 criteria, 3 levels)
- Accessibility considerations (e.g., options for text/audio, word count guidance)

Constraints / netiquette: [netiquette constraints]

Design an authentic assessment for a [discipline] module.

Module learning objectives (MLOs):
[MLOs]

Learner context (who they are / workplace relevance): [learner context]
Tools allowed: [tools allowed]

Deliverables:
1) Task scenario (realistic, not academic-only)
2) Student instructions (step-by-step)
3) Required artifacts (what they submit)
4) Evaluation approach (rubric criteria aligned to each MLO)
5) Integrity supports (how to reduce cheating via personalization/process evidence)
6) Estimated time-on-task + suggested pacing

Create a case study assessment for [discipline] focused on [topic].

Constraints: [constraints]
Aligned MLOs: [MLOs]

Include:
- Case narrative (500–800 words)
- A data appendix (tables, short excerpts, or figures described in text)
- 6–8 student questions: a mix of Apply/Analyze/Evaluate
- A scoring guide: what an excellent answer includes for each question
- One optional extension for advanced learners

Keep it feasible for an online course without special software.

Write [question count] quiz questions for [topic] for a [course level] course.

Requirements:
- Include a distribution across Bloom levels: Remember/Understand (30%), Apply/Analyze (50%), Evaluate (20%)
- Mix formats: multiple-choice, select-all-that-apply, short answer
- For each item provide: correct answer, rationale, and a common misconception the distractors represent
- Ensure accessibility (no 'see the image' dependence; describe needed info in text)

Return in a table with columns: Bloom level | Type | Question | Options (if any) | Correct | Rationale | Misconception.

Create a peer review rubric for a [assignment type].

Criteria to include: [criteria]
Desired feedback tone: [tone] (e.g., supportive but direct)

Deliver:
- A 5–7 criterion checklist with 3 performance levels
- For each criterion: 2 sentence starters peers can use
- A required 'actionable revision plan' section (what the author will change next)
- 3 guardrails to reduce unhelpful feedback (e.g., 'be specific; cite a line/section')

Make it suitable for first-time peer reviewers.

Design a scaffolded assignment sequence for this complex project: [project].

Timeline (weeks/modules): [timeline]
Aligned MLOs: [MLOs]
Grading constraints: [grading constraints] (e.g., fewer grading touchpoints, TA support, etc.)

Provide:
- 4–6 stages with deliverables, due timing, and estimated effort
- For each stage: success criteria + feedback method (auto, peer, instructor)
- A final submission package checklist
- A 'common failure points' section with prevention strategies

Review this assessment and propose 6 integrity-by-design improvements that preserve the learning goals.

Assessment description: [assessment]
Learning goals: [learning goals]
Constraints (class size, tools, time, proctoring limits): [constraints]

Output:
- A short risk diagnosis (what is easily outsourced/auto-generated)
- 6 improvements grouped by: personalization, process evidence, in-class/recorded checkpoints, and reflective justification
- For each improvement: what changes, why it helps, and what to communicate to students

Write a student-facing Module Overview page for: [module title].

Include:
- A 2–3 sentence module purpose
- Module learning objectives (use these): [objectives]
- A checklist-style agenda with estimated time for each item
- Required readings/media (with brief 'what to look for' guidance)
- Activities and graded deliverables: [activities]
- Due dates: [due dates]
- 3 success tips + 2 common mistakes to avoid

Constraints:
- Write in plain language, friendly but professional.
- Use headings and bullet lists for scan-ability.
- Do not reference tools students might not have.

Draft a Welcome page for [course name].

Audience: [audience]
Key tools/platforms: [key tools]
Communication policy: [communication policy]

Include sections:
1) Welcome message (warm, concise)
2) What you’ll learn + why it matters
3) How the course is organized (modules, weekly rhythm)
4) How to succeed (time expectations, how to ask for help, study habits)
5) Communication & feedback timelines
6) Accessibility and support reminder (brief, inclusive)
7) 'Start Here' checklist with 5 steps

Keep it under ~600 words and formatted for an LMS page.

Write student instructions for a group project: [project].

Parameters:
- Group size: [group size]
- Collaboration tools available: [tools]
- Grading approach: [grading approach] (e.g., group grade + individual component)

Must include:
- Required roles (with optional rotation) and responsibilities
- A team contract template (brief)
- Milestones with due dates/checkpoints
- How to document contributions (evidence)
- Conflict resolution steps + when to escalate to instructor
- Accessibility-friendly collaboration options

Write it so students can follow it without extra explanation.

Create a study guide for a [course level] course based on these key concepts:
[key concepts]

Exam format: [exam format]

Include:
- A prioritized concept list (high/medium/low) with why it matters
- For each concept: 2 retrieval practice questions + 1 common misconception
- A 7-day study plan (daily tasks, 30–60 min blocks)
- A short 'how to check your understanding' section

Avoid fluff; make it actionable and student-friendly.

Create a reading guide for: [text/article].

Aligned learning objectives: [learning objectives]
Upcoming discussion/assignment context: [discussion/assignment]

Deliver:
- Pre-reading questions (3) to activate prior knowledge
- During-reading tasks (5): what to highlight/annotate, what to compare, what to question
- After-reading prompts (4): application + critique + transfer to practice
- A 5-item vocabulary/terms list with simple definitions
- One optional extension for students who want more depth

Write a 'How to Succeed in This Course' page for a [course modality] course.

Weekly time expectation: [weekly time]
Key policies/constraints: [policies]

Include:
- Weekly routine (what to do Mon–Sun)
- How to approach readings/videos effectively
- Participation expectations (what quality looks like)
- How to submit work (and avoid common LMS mistakes)
- What to do if you fall behind (concrete steps)
- Where to get help (technical + academic + accessibility)

Format with headings and bullet lists for scan-ability.

Rewrite these assignment instructions to remove ambiguity and reduce student questions.

Original instructions:
[assignment instructions]

Submission method: [submission method]
Grading criteria (if any): [grading criteria]

Output:
- A rewritten student-facing version with numbered steps
- A 'Checklist before you submit'
- 5 FAQs (based on likely confusion points)
- Any missing information you need (as clarifying questions)

Write a 5–7 minute micro-lecture script on [topic] for [audience].

Common misconceptions to address: [misconceptions]

Include:
- A hook (30 seconds)
- 3 key points with examples
- Two quick checks for understanding (questions or mini-activity)
- A closing summary + 'what to do next'
- A slide outline (6–8 slides) with suggested visuals described in text

Write for spoken delivery and include accessibility notes (captions, alt text guidance for any charts).

Rewrite the content below to improve accessibility and readability while preserving meaning.

Audience: [audience]
Tone: [tone]

Content:
[content]

Requirements:
- Use clear headings (H2/H3 style), short paragraphs, and bullet lists where helpful
- Define acronyms on first use
- Replace directional language like 'click the red button' with non-visual cues
- Ensure instructions do not rely on color alone
- Add meaningful link text suggestions (no 'click here')

Output:
1) Revised content
2) A brief list of changes made (why they matter for WCAG 2.1 AA)

Write alt text for an image used in a course.

Image description (what it shows): [image description]
Learning purpose (why it’s here): [learning purpose]
What students should notice/do with it: [what students should notice]

Output 3 versions:
1) Short alt text (<= 125 characters)
2) Medium alt text (1–2 sentences)
3) If needed: a long description (for complex charts/infographics) that could live in body text below the image

Rules:
- Don’t say 'image of' or 'graphic of' unless necessary
- Include only details that support the learning purpose
- If the image is decorative, say so and recommend empty alt text (alt="")

Create an accessibility checklist for building a new online course in [LMS].

Tools available: [tools]
Course elements: [course elements] (pages, PDFs, videos, discussions, quizzes, assignments, etc.)

Checklist requirements:
- Group by: Page structure, Links, Images/alt text, Documents, Video/Audio, Tables, Color/contrast, Forms/quizzes, External tools
- For each item: what to check + how to verify + common failure example
- Include a 'minimum viable accessibility' section (top 10 items)

Keep it practical for a busy ID team.

Adapt the activity below for a student with this accommodation need: [accommodation need].

Original activity:
[activity]

Learning objective to preserve: [learning objective]

Output:
- 2–3 accessible alternative ways to complete the activity (equivalent rigor)
- What stays the same (objective/criteria) vs what changes (format/tools/time)
- Any instructor prep needed
- How to communicate the option to students without singling anyone out

Draft a course accessibility statement for an online course.

Institution wording to incorporate (if any): [institution wording]
How students request accommodations: [contact process]
How to report tool/content access issues: [tool issues process]

Requirements:
- Inclusive, supportive tone
- Encourages early communication
- Mentions alternative formats and captioning
- Includes a clear 'what to do if something isn’t accessible' step

Keep it concise (150–250 words).

Audit the HTML below for accessibility issues (WCAG 2.1 AA) and propose corrected HTML.

Context (where it appears / purpose): [context]

HTML:
[HTML]

Output:
1) Issues found (bullet list) with WCAG principle mapping (Perceivable/Operable/Understandable/Robust)
2) A corrected HTML version
3) Notes on any changes that might affect visual layout

Create a remediation plan to fix color/contrast and non-color cues on this course page.

Page description / sample content: [page description]
Colors currently used: [colors used]
Constraints: [constraints]

Provide:
- A prioritized list of fixes (high → low impact)
- Alternative patterns that don’t rely on color alone (icons, labels, headings, spacing)
- Suggested wording rewrites where directions rely on color/position
- A quick checklist for re-checking after changes

Suggest Universal Design for Learning (UDL) improvements for this module without increasing instructor workload too much.

Module summary: [module]
Primary assessment: [assessment]
Constraints (class size, grading time, tools): [constraints]

Output:
- 3 options for Representation (how content is accessed)
- 3 options for Action/Expression (how students demonstrate learning)
- 3 options for Engagement (choice, relevance, collaboration)

For each option include: effort level (low/med/high), what changes, and how to grade consistently.

Draft an email to a faculty member explaining why this change improves their course: [change].

Benefits to emphasize: [benefits] (student experience, accessibility, QM alignment, reduced confusion, etc.)
What you need from the faculty member: [what you need from faculty]
Timeline: [timeline]

Requirements:
- Respectful, collaborative tone (no 'compliance' vibes)
- 1 short paragraph summary + bullets
- Offer 2 options: (A) you implement with minimal review, (B) they review/approve specific items
- End with a clear next step and time estimate

Write a Quality Matters-style review summary for an instructor.

Course context: [course context]
Findings/notes (raw):
[findings]
Priority constraints: [priority constraints] (what can/can’t change)

Output:
- Strengths (3–5 bullets)
- High-impact recommendations (5–7 bullets), each with: what to change, why it matters (student impact), and effort level (low/med/high)
- A 2-week action plan (what we can complete together)

Keep the tone constructive and specific.

Draft a short, diplomatic message requesting content updates.

What’s missing / unclear: [what is missing]
Why it’s needed (student impact / build timeline): [why needed]
Minimal ask (what you need them to do): [minimal ask]
Deadline / preferred response time: [deadline]

Requirements:
- Assume positive intent
- Provide a quick 'copy/paste reply' option
- Offer to propose a draft if they don’t have time
- Keep it under 160 words

Create a one-page faculty onboarding guide for [tool] in the LMS.

What faculty need to do with it: [what faculty need to do]
Common mistakes to prevent: [common mistakes]

Include:
- What it is / when to use it
- Setup steps (numbered)
- Recommended settings (with rationale)
- Student-facing directions template (copy/paste)
- Troubleshooting (top 5)

Write for non-technical faculty, plain language.

Write a brief course improvement proposal.

Issue: [issue]
Evidence (data, student feedback, support tickets, outcomes): [evidence]
Recommendation: [recommendation]
Scope/constraints: [scope]

Output sections:
1) Executive summary (3–4 sentences)
2) Current state + impact on students
3) Proposed changes (bulleted, concrete)
4) Risks/mitigations
5) Success metrics (how we’ll know it worked)
6) Implementation plan (phases + estimated time)

Help me communicate these course issues to an instructor in a way that is constructive and non-defensive.

Issues (with examples): [issues]
Tone preference: [tone preference]
Next steps I want: [next steps]

Write:
- A short message (email or Teams/Slack)
- A bulleted list of issues grouped by theme
- A prioritization suggestion (what to fix first and why)

Assume the instructor is busy and cares about students.

Create a 30-minute instructional design consult agenda for this course: [course].

Goals: [goals]
Decisions needed from faculty: [decisions needed]

Output:
- Minute-by-minute agenda
- 8 targeted questions to ask
- A decision log template (what we decided, who owns it, due date)
- A follow-up email template summarizing outcomes

Write a student announcement about this course change: [change].

Effective date: [effective date]
What students should do now: [what students should do]

Requirements:
- Clear subject line
- 1 paragraph summary + bullets
- Address likely student concerns (grading, deadlines, where to find things)
- End with a quick call to action

Given the content below, identify which Quality Matters Higher Ed rubric standards it addresses and what evidence would support each.

Course context: [course context]
Content to review:
[content]

Output:
- A list of likely QM standards (e.g., 1.1, 2.1, 4.1, etc.)
- For each: why it applies, and what 'evidence' a reviewer would look for
- Gaps: standards that should be addressed nearby but aren’t

If you’re unsure, state assumptions and ask clarifying questions.

Write a netiquette policy for an online course that meets QM Standard 1.3.

Course context: [course context]
Discussion tools used: [discussion tools]
Tone: [tone]

Include:
- Expected behaviors (respect, evidence, professionalism)
- What 'good participation' looks like with 2 examples
- What to do if conflict arises
- Accessibility considerations (communication modes, captions, etc.)
- A short version suitable for a syllabus + a longer version for the LMS

Create a Technical Requirements page that aligns with QM Standards 6.1–6.2.

Tools/technologies used: [tools]
Minimum device/browser specs: [minimum specs]
Support links/contacts: [support links]

Include:
- Required vs recommended technology
- How to test technology before Week 1
- Accessibility tool compatibility notes (screen readers, captions)
- What to do if technology fails (backup plan)

Write in plain language and organized headings.

Audit the module overview below against QM Standards 2.1–2.5.

Course outcomes (if available): [course outcomes]
Module overview:
[module overview]

Output:
- For each standard (2.1–2.5): Meets/Partially/Does not meet + evidence
- Specific revisions (copy-ready text)
- A short alignment note: objectives → activities → assessments

Be concrete and practical.

Write a Learner Support page/section aligned to QM Standards 7.1–7.4.

Institution: [institution]
Links/resources to include (if known): [links]
Contact info norms: [contact]

Include sections:
- Academic support
- Technical support
- Accessibility / disability services
- Library/research support
- Student services

Write as copy-ready LMS content with placeholders where specifics are unknown.

Create a practical QM self-review checklist for a [modality] course.

Course elements present: [course elements]

Checklist requirements:
- Organize by QM General Standards 1–8
- Each item should be phrased as a verification question
- Include 'evidence to look for' and a quick fix tip
- Mark 'high impact' items (top 12)

Keep it short enough to use during a build (not a 40-page document).

Create a QM evidence collection plan for an online course.

Course structure summary: [course structure]
Tools used: [tools]

Output a table with columns:
- QM Standard
- Evidence artifact (what to capture)
- Where to find it (LMS location)
- Notes (common pitfalls)

Focus on the standards that most often fail due to missing evidence.

Write a concise alignment narrative describing how this course is designed.

Course outcomes: [outcomes]
Assessments: [assessments]
Module structure: [module structure]

Requirements:
- 2–4 short paragraphs
- Explain how students practice before they are graded
- Mention accessibility/UDL considerations
- Avoid jargon; write for a non-ID stakeholder

Design an icebreaker activity for an online [graduate/undergraduate] course on [topic].

Constraints: [constraints] (class size, async/sync, tool limits)

Include:
- Student instructions
- A prompt that elicits prior experience + goals
- A low-risk way to participate (text/audio/video choice)
- A structured interaction requirement that goes beyond 'reply to two peers'
- A quick grading approach (complete/incomplete + quality nudge)

Keep it welcoming and inclusive.

Write a discussion prompt that generates authentic debate about [topic].

Stakeholders/positions to include: [stakeholders]
Required course resource to cite: [resource]

The prompt must:
- Force a tradeoff decision (no 'it depends' answers)
- Require evidence: one course citation + one external credible source
- Include a rebuttal task: students must critique a peer’s assumption with evidence
- Provide a short rubric (claim, evidence, engagement)

Provide 2 alternative versions: one for undergrad, one for grad.

Design a gamified learning activity for [topic] aligned to these objectives: [objectives].

Tools available: [tools]

Include:
- Game loop (challenge → feedback → progress)
- Rules and how students 'win' (mastery-based)
- 3 levels or missions with increasing difficulty
- How to provide feedback quickly (auto/peer/instructor)
- Accessibility considerations (time limits, alternatives, cognitive load)

Deliver as an LMS-ready activity description.

Create a mid-course check-in survey for this course: [course context].

Delivery method: [delivery method] (LMS quiz, Google Form, anonymous/non-anonymous)

Include:
- 10 Likert-scale items grouped by: clarity, workload, feedback, engagement, accessibility
- 5 open-ended questions that produce actionable suggestions
- A short intro explaining why you’re asking and what you’ll do with the results
- A 'closing the loop' announcement template summarizing changes you’ll make

Design a collaborative annotation activity for this reading: [reading].

Annotation tool: [tool] (or 'LMS discussion' if none)
Aligned objectives: [learning objectives]

Include:
- Student instructions
- 8 annotation prompts across: clarification, connection, critique, application
- A participation target (e.g., # of annotations + replies) with quality guidance
- A lightweight grading approach
- Accessibility alternative if annotation tools are not accessible

Design a virtual field trip or simulation activity for [topic] using this virtual resource: [virtual resource].

Assessment type: [assessment] (reflection, artifact, discussion, quiz)

Include:
- Learning objectives
- Guided steps (what to explore in order)
- 6 observation prompts that require noticing details
- 4 reflection/application prompts
- An extension challenge
- Accessibility considerations (captions, transcripts, alternatives)

Create a week 1–3 engagement and belonging intervention plan for [course].

Signals of disengagement to address: [signals] (late logins, missing intro posts, low discussion)
Constraints: [constraints]

Output:
- 5 low-effort instructor actions (messages, nudges, structure tweaks)
- 3 course design tweaks (navigation, scaffolds, clarity)
- Two message templates: (a) general class nudge, (b) supportive 1:1 outreach
- How to measure if it worked

Help me redesign participation grading so it is equitable and tied to learning.

Activity types used: [activity types] (discussions, annotations, peer review, quizzes, etc.)
Course level: [course level]
Constraints: [constraints]

Output:
- A participation definition (what counts)
- 3–4 measurable criteria with examples
- A simple points scheme for a week/module
- Language to include in the syllabus/LMS
- Accessibility considerations (multiple modes of participation)

Create a consistent module template structure for a [N]-week [modality] course.

Tools/constraints: [tools]

For each module, specify:
- Required pages/items (Overview, Objectives, Content, Practice, Assignment, Wrap-up)
- Recommended order in the LMS
- What goes on each page (with brief examples)
- Naming conventions (for pages, assignments, files)
- A short 'student weekly workflow' paragraph

Keep it realistic for instructors to maintain.

Create a course schedule for [topic] with [N modules].

Key assessments: [key assessments]
Weekly rhythm: [weekly rhythm] (e.g., readings due Wed, discussion Fri, assignment Sun)

Output a table with columns:
- Module/Week
- Topics
- Learning objectives (short)
- Required work (read/watch/practice) with time estimate
- Graded deliverables (due day)

Then recommend 3 workload-balancing tweaks if any week looks heavy.

Write a student-facing course navigation guide for [LMS].

Course layout summary: [course layout] (where modules, grades, discussions, etc. live)
Common confusions to address: [common confusions]

Include:
- Where to start
- Where to find weekly tasks
- Where to submit assignments and check feedback
- How to track progress
- A troubleshooting section (3–5 items)

Write in plain language with headings and bullet lists.

Create a 'Start Here' module checklist for [course].

Required first-week tasks: [required tasks]
Tools students must access: [tools]

Checklist requirements:
- 8–12 items total
- Each item is a clear action with a link placeholder
- Include a technology check + accessibility/support links
- Include one low-stakes 'first submission' to ensure students can submit work

Return as copy-ready LMS text.

Organize the following topics into a logical sequence for a [course level] course.

Topics:
[topic list]

Constraints: [constraints] (term length, prerequisites, required units)

Output:
- A proposed module sequence with short titles
- Rationale for the order (prerequisite logic, complexity, application)
- Where to place practice vs assessment moments
- Any topics that should be combined, split, or treated as optional

Write transition text that connects these modules.

Previous module summary: [previous module]
Next module summary: [next module]
Why the connection matters: [why it matters]

Write:
- A 3–5 sentence bridge paragraph
- 2 preview questions to spark curiosity
- One 'look back' prompt that cues students to reuse a prior skill/concept

Audit this course for consistency issues that commonly confuse students.

Course notes / structure description: [course notes]
Policies and key statements: [policies]

Output a checklist of issues to verify, grouped by:
- Naming conventions
- Due dates and availability
- Instructions and submission paths
- Grading/points
- Communication policies

Then provide a short 'standardization plan' with naming templates and where to place policies.

Create a reusable weekly overview announcement template for an online course.

Week/module: [module/week]
Key dates/deliverables: [key dates]
Common pitfalls to warn about: [common pitfalls]

Template must include:
- What we’re focusing on this week (1–2 sentences)
- Checklist of tasks
- Reminders (deadlines + where to submit)
- One learning tip
- Where to get help

Return as a fill-in-the-blank template.