agentic-team-templates 0.15.0 → 0.16.0

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "agentic-team-templates",
-  "version": "0.15.0",
+  "version": "0.16.0",
   "description": "AI coding assistant templates for Cursor IDE. Pre-configured rules and guidelines that help AI assistants write better code. - use at your own risk",
   "keywords": [
     "cursor",

package/src/index.js

@@ -48,6 +48,10 @@ const TEMPLATES = {
     description: 'Technical documentation standards (READMEs, API docs, ADRs, code comments)',
     rules: ['adr.md', 'api-documentation.md', 'code-comments.md', 'maintenance.md', 'overview.md', 'readme-standards.md']
   },
+  'educator': {
+    description: 'World-class pedagogy with evidence-based teaching, learning retention, gamification, and assessment design',
+    rules: ['accessibility.md', 'assessment.md', 'curriculum.md', 'engagement.md', 'instructional-design.md', 'overview.md', 'retention.md']
+  },
   'fullstack': {
     description: 'Full-stack web applications (Next.js, Nuxt, SvelteKit, Remix)',
     rules: ['api-contracts.md', 'architecture.md', 'overview.md', 'shared-types.md', 'testing.md']
@@ -137,6 +141,8 @@ const TEMPLATE_ALIASES = {
   'cpp': 'cpp-expert',
   'csharp': 'csharp-expert',
   'cs': 'csharp-expert',
+  'teach': 'educator',
+  'teacher': 'educator',
 };
 
 /**
@@ -255,6 +261,7 @@ ${colors.yellow('Shorthand Aliases:')}
   java                           → java-expert
   cpp                            → cpp-expert
   csharp, cs                     → csharp-expert
+  teach, teacher                 → educator
 
 ${colors.yellow('Examples:')}
   npx cursor-templates js

package/src/index.test.js

@@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ describe('Constants', () => {
         'data-engineering',
         'devops-sre',
         'documentation',
+        'educator',
         'fullstack',
         'golang-expert',
         'java-expert',

package/templates/educator/.cursorrules/accessibility.md

@@ -0,0 +1,266 @@
+# Accessibility and Inclusive Education
+
+Universal Design for Learning and evidence-based practices for reaching every learner.
+
+## Universal Design for Learning (CAST)
+
+### Three UDL Principles
+
+```
+UDL Framework
+├── Principle I: Multiple Means of REPRESENTATION (the "what" of learning)
+│   ├── Provide options for perception
+│   ├── Provide options for language and symbols
+│   └── Provide options for comprehension
+│
+├── Principle II: Multiple Means of ACTION & EXPRESSION (the "how" of learning)
+│   ├── Provide options for physical action
+│   ├── Provide options for expression and communication
+│   └── Provide options for executive functions
+│
+└── Principle III: Multiple Means of ENGAGEMENT (the "why" of learning)
+    ├── Provide options for recruiting interest
+    ├── Provide options for sustaining effort and persistence
+    └── Provide options for self-regulation
+```
+
+### UDL Implementation Guide
+
+| Principle | Guideline | Practical Example |
+|-----------|-----------|-------------------|
+| Representation | Offer alternatives for visual info | Provide text descriptions for images, transcripts for videos |
+| Representation | Clarify vocabulary and symbols | Define key terms, provide glossaries, use consistent notation |
+| Representation | Activate prior knowledge | Start lessons with connections to what learners already know |
+| Action & Expression | Vary methods for response | Allow written, verbal, visual, or multimedia submissions |
+| Action & Expression | Support planning and strategy | Provide checklists, graphic organizers, project timelines |
+| Action & Expression | Facilitate managing information | Offer templates, note-taking guides, categorization tools |
+| Engagement | Optimize individual choice | Let learners choose topics, tools, or assessment formats |
+| Engagement | Foster collaboration | Structured group work with clear roles and accountability |
+| Engagement | Develop self-assessment | Teach learners to use rubrics to evaluate their own work |
+
+### UDL Checkpoint: Lesson Review
+
+```markdown
+Before delivering a lesson, check:
+
+Representation:
+- [ ] Content is available in at least 2 formats (text + visual, audio + text)
+- [ ] Key vocabulary is explicitly defined
+- [ ] Background knowledge is activated
+
+Action & Expression:
+- [ ] Learners have more than one way to demonstrate understanding
+- [ ] Scaffolds are available (templates, graphic organizers, exemplars)
+- [ ] Technology options are flexible and accessible
+
+Engagement:
+- [ ] Learners have meaningful choices
+- [ ] Goals are clear and relevant to learners
+- [ ] Collaboration is structured with clear expectations
+```
+
+## Differentiated Instruction
+
+### Differentiation Model (Tomlinson)
+
+```
+Differentiate by:
+├── Content: WHAT learners study
+│   └── Same concept, different complexity or resources
+├── Process: HOW learners make sense of it
+│   └── Same goal, different activities or scaffolding
+├── Product: HOW learners demonstrate learning
+│   └── Same objectives, different output formats
+└── Environment: WHERE and WITH WHOM learners work
+    └── Same classroom, different grouping and settings
+```
+
+### Differentiation Strategies
+
+| Strategy | Description | Example |
+|----------|-------------|---------|
+| Tiered assignments | Same objective, varying complexity | All students analyze a text; Tier 1 guided questions, Tier 2 open analysis, Tier 3 comparative analysis |
+| Flexible grouping | Group by readiness, interest, or learning preference | Readiness groups for skill practice; mixed groups for projects |
+| Learning menus | Choice board of activities aligned to objectives | "Choose 3 from this menu to demonstrate your understanding" |
+| Anchor activities | Meaningful work for early finishers | Extension problems, enrichment readings, peer tutoring |
+| Compacting | Pre-test to skip mastered content | Students who demonstrate mastery work on extension projects |
+
+### Tiered Assignment Template
+
+```markdown
+Objective: [Same for all tiers]
+
+Tier 1 (Approaching):
+- Scaffolded task with guided steps
+- Graphic organizer provided
+- Worked example available for reference
+
+Tier 2 (Meeting):
+- Standard task with minimal scaffolding
+- Choice of graphic organizer (optional)
+- Peer collaboration encouraged
+
+Tier 3 (Exceeding):
+- Extended task requiring transfer to new context
+- Open-ended approach
+- Independent or mentoring others
+```
+
+## Learning Styles: The Myth
+
+### What the Research Says
+
+```markdown
+IMPORTANT: The "learning styles" model (visual, auditory, kinesthetic)
+is NOT supported by research evidence.
+
+The "meshing hypothesis" — that matching instruction to preferred
+learning style improves outcomes — has been tested repeatedly
+and consistently fails to show benefits.
+
+Key studies:
+- Pashler et al. (2008): Comprehensive review found no credible evidence
+- Rogowsky et al. (2015): No interaction between style and instruction format
+- Husmann & O'Loughlin (2019): Students didn't even study in their "preferred" style
+
+What DOES work:
+- Multiple representations of content (UDL) — benefits ALL learners
+- Matching modality to CONTENT type (diagrams for spatial, text for verbal)
+- Active learning strategies regardless of supposed "style"
+```
+
+### What to Do Instead
+
+```markdown
+❌ "This student is a visual learner, so only use diagrams"
+✅ "All students benefit from multiple representations (UDL Principle I)"
+
+❌ Assess students' learning styles and customize per student
+✅ Provide content in multiple formats for everyone
+
+The goal is not matching to preference; it is matching to content:
+- Geography → maps (visual makes sense for the CONTENT)
+- Music → audio (auditory makes sense for the CONTENT)
+- Vocabulary → verbal definitions + visual examples (dual coding helps ALL)
+```
+
+## Inclusive Content Design
+
+### Language and Representation
+
+```markdown
+Inclusive practices:
+- Use diverse names, contexts, and scenarios in examples
+- Avoid stereotypes in case studies and problem contexts
+- Represent multiple cultures, backgrounds, and perspectives
+- Use gender-inclusive language
+- Present multiple viewpoints on complex topics
+```
+
+### Culturally Responsive Teaching
+
+| Principle | Practice |
+|-----------|----------|
+| High expectations for all | Hold rigorous standards while providing support to meet them |
+| Cultural competence | Learn about students' backgrounds; incorporate into instruction |
+| Critical consciousness | Connect learning to real-world issues students care about |
+| Student voice | Create space for students to share perspectives and experiences |
+| Asset-based framing | Focus on what students bring, not what they lack |
+
+### Accessible Materials Checklist
+
+```markdown
+Text:
+- [ ] Sans-serif font, minimum 12pt (14pt preferred)
+- [ ] High contrast (minimum 4.5:1 ratio)
+- [ ] Left-aligned (not justified)
+- [ ] 1.5 line spacing minimum
+- [ ] Clear heading hierarchy (H1, H2, H3)
+
+Images:
+- [ ] Alt text for all meaningful images
+- [ ] Decorative images marked as decorative
+- [ ] No information conveyed by color alone
+
+Video:
+- [ ] Captions for all spoken content
+- [ ] Audio descriptions for visual-only content
+- [ ] Transcript available
+
+Documents:
+- [ ] Proper heading structure (not just bold/large text)
+- [ ] Tables have header rows
+- [ ] Links have descriptive text (not "click here")
+- [ ] Reading order is logical for screen readers
+
+Assessment:
+- [ ] Extended time available when appropriate
+- [ ] Alternative formats offered (oral, written, visual)
+- [ ] Instructions are clear and unambiguous
+- [ ] Examples are provided for unfamiliar formats
+```
+
+## Supporting Diverse Learners
+
+### English Language Learners
+
+| Strategy | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| Visual supports | Pair text with images, diagrams, and real objects |
+| Sentence frames | Provide structured templates for academic language |
+| Word walls | Display key vocabulary with definitions and visuals |
+| Wait time | Allow extra processing time (7-10 seconds) |
+| Preview/review | Introduce key concepts before, review after |
+| Collaborative structures | Pair with bilingual peers for support |
+
+### Learners with Disabilities
+
+```markdown
+Focus on BARRIERS, not deficits:
+
+❌ "This student can't learn because of their disability"
+✅ "What barriers in the learning environment can we remove?"
+
+Universal design removes barriers proactively:
+- Flexible materials (digital text that can be resized, read aloud)
+- Multiple means of expression (don't require handwriting if typing works)
+- Flexible timing (mastery matters more than speed)
+- Accessible technology (screen readers, speech-to-text, magnification)
+```
+
+### Gifted and Advanced Learners
+
+| Strategy | Description |
+|----------|-------------|
+| Curriculum compacting | Pre-test and skip mastered content |
+| Depth and complexity | Add layers of analysis, not just more work |
+| Independent study | Self-directed projects on topics of interest |
+| Mentorship | Connect with experts in areas of passion |
+| Acceleration | Move faster through content when mastery is demonstrated |
+
+```markdown
+❌ "You finished early? Do 10 more problems" (busywork)
+✅ "You've mastered this. Here's a challenge that extends the concept
+    to a new context" (depth, not volume)
+```
+
+## Trauma-Informed Practices
+
+### Core Principles
+
+```markdown
+1. Safety: Create physically and emotionally safe spaces
+2. Trustworthiness: Be consistent, transparent, and follow through
+3. Choice: Offer control wherever possible
+4. Collaboration: Work WITH students, not ON them
+5. Empowerment: Build on strengths; foster resilience
+```
+
+### Classroom Strategies
+
+- Establish predictable routines
+- Provide advance notice of changes
+- Offer quiet spaces for self-regulation
+- Use calm, regulated tone
+- Avoid public shaming or confrontation
+- Build relationships before demanding compliance

package/templates/educator/.cursorrules/assessment.md

@@ -0,0 +1,215 @@
+# Assessment Design
+
+Evidence-based approaches to measuring learning and guiding instruction.
+
+## Assessment Types
+
+### Formative vs. Summative
+
+| Aspect | Formative | Summative |
+|--------|-----------|-----------|
+| Purpose | Guide instruction, identify gaps | Evaluate achievement |
+| Timing | During learning | After learning |
+| Stakes | Low (practice, not grading) | Higher (grading, certification) |
+| Frequency | Continuous (every 10-15 min) | Periodic (end of unit/course) |
+| Feedback | Immediate, specific, actionable | Evaluative, comparative |
+| Analogy | GPS during the journey | Final destination photo |
+
+### Formative Assessment Techniques
+
+| Technique | Time | Description |
+|-----------|------|-------------|
+| Exit tickets | 2-3 min | Brief written response to a prompt at end of lesson |
+| Think-pair-share | 3-5 min | Individual think → partner discuss → share with class |
+| Muddiest point | 1-2 min | "What was most confusing today?" |
+| One-minute paper | 1-2 min | "Summarize the most important idea from today" |
+| Polling/clickers | 1 min | Real-time multiple choice with immediate data |
+| Whiteboards | 2-3 min | All students display answers simultaneously |
+| Fist-to-five | 30 sec | Self-assess confidence (0=lost, 5=mastered) |
+| Misconception check | 2-3 min | Present common error; ask if correct and why |
+
+### Summative Assessment Types
+
+| Type | Best For | Bloom's Level |
+|------|----------|---------------|
+| Multiple choice | Recall, comprehension, discrimination | Remember–Analyze |
+| Short answer | Recall, explanation, application | Remember–Apply |
+| Essay | Analysis, evaluation, synthesis | Analyze–Create |
+| Problem sets | Application, analysis | Apply–Analyze |
+| Projects | Synthesis, creation, real-world transfer | Apply–Create |
+| Portfolios | Growth over time, reflection, metacognition | All levels |
+| Performances | Demonstration of skills in context | Apply–Create |
+| Oral exams | Depth of understanding, reasoning process | Understand–Evaluate |
+
+## Rubric Design
+
+### Analytic vs. Holistic Rubrics
+
+```markdown
+Analytic Rubric: Scores each criterion separately
+  → Use when: Detailed feedback needed, skills are independent
+  → Example: Writing rubric (thesis, evidence, organization, grammar scored separately)
+
+Holistic Rubric: Single overall score based on general impression
+  → Use when: Quick scoring needed, overall quality matters more than components
+  → Example: Art portfolio (overall artistic merit)
+```
+
+### Analytic Rubric Template
+
+```markdown
+| Criterion | Exemplary (4) | Proficient (3) | Developing (2) | Beginning (1) |
+|-----------|---------------|-----------------|-----------------|----------------|
+| [Criterion 1] | [Description of exemplary performance] | [Description of proficient performance] | [Description of developing performance] | [Description of beginning performance] |
+| [Criterion 2] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] |
+| [Criterion 3] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] | [Description] |
+```
+
+### Rubric Best Practices
+
+1. **Share rubrics before the assessment** — students should know the target
+2. **Use descriptive language, not evaluative** — describe what the work looks like at each level
+3. **Include examples** — anchor each level with sample work
+4. **Limit criteria to 3-6** — more than 6 creates cognitive overload for assessors
+5. **Use consistent scale** — same number of levels across criteria
+6. **Involve learners** — co-create rubrics when appropriate
+
+### Writing Rubric Descriptors
+
+```markdown
+❌ Vague: "Good use of evidence"
+✅ Specific: "Integrates 3+ relevant sources with proper citations,
+    using evidence to directly support each claim in the argument"
+
+❌ Comparative: "Better than average analysis"
+✅ Absolute: "Identifies the underlying assumptions in the argument
+    and evaluates their validity using logical reasoning"
+```
+
+## Mastery-Based Progression
+
+### Principle
+
+Learners advance when they demonstrate mastery of objectives, not when a calendar date arrives.
+
+### Mastery Learning Model (Bloom)
+
+```
+Instruction → Formative Assessment → Mastery?
+                                        │
+                              ┌─────────┴──────────┐
+                              ▼                     ▼
+                          Yes: Advance          No: Corrective
+                          to next unit          instruction →
+                                                Re-assess →
+                                                Loop until mastery
+```
+
+### Mastery Criteria
+
+```markdown
+Define mastery BEFORE instruction:
+- Criterion-referenced (not norm-referenced)
+- Typically 80-90% accuracy on core objectives
+- Must demonstrate on novel problems (not repeated items)
+- Allow multiple attempts (learning from errors is the point)
+```
+
+### Mastery Gradebook
+
+| Objective | Attempt 1 | Attempt 2 | Attempt 3 | Status |
+|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
+| Identify logical fallacies | 60% | 75% | 90% | Mastered |
+| Construct valid arguments | 70% | 85% | — | Mastered |
+| Evaluate source credibility | 55% | 65% | 70% | In Progress |
+
+## Authentic Assessment
+
+### Principle
+
+Assessments should mirror real-world tasks that professionals or citizens actually perform.
+
+### Authentic vs. Traditional
+
+| Traditional | Authentic |
+|-------------|-----------|
+| Select a response | Construct a response |
+| Contrived context | Real-world context |
+| Recall/recognition | Application/transfer |
+| Teacher as sole audience | Authentic audience |
+| Single correct answer | Multiple valid approaches |
+| One-time event | Ongoing process |
+
+### Authentic Assessment Examples
+
+| Subject | Traditional | Authentic |
+|---------|-------------|-----------|
+| Science | Multiple choice on lab procedures | Design and conduct an experiment |
+| Writing | Grammar worksheet | Write a letter to the editor about a local issue |
+| Math | Solve textbook problems | Create a budget for a community event |
+| History | Memorize dates and events | Analyze primary sources to argue a historical thesis |
+| Programming | Syntax quiz | Build a working application that solves a user need |
+
+## Writing Effective Test Items
+
+### Multiple Choice Best Practices
+
+```markdown
+✅ Good Item:
+  Stem: "Which of the following best explains why spaced practice
+         improves long-term retention?"
+  A) It reduces the total amount of study time needed
+  B) It forces repeated retrieval from long-term memory  ← correct
+  C) It allows students to re-read material more times
+  D) It groups similar topics for efficient review
+
+✅ Why it's good:
+  - Stem is a complete question
+  - All options are plausible
+  - No "all of the above" or "none of the above"
+  - Tests understanding, not just recall
+  - Options are parallel in structure and length
+```
+
+### Common Item-Writing Errors
+
+| Error | Example | Fix |
+|-------|---------|-----|
+| Stem clue | "An unbiased sample is one that is NOT..." | Rephrase positively |
+| Longest correct answer | Correct option has 3x the detail of distractors | Equalize length |
+| Absolute terms | "always," "never" in distractors | Use qualified language |
+| "All of the above" | Guessing 2 correct implies all correct | Remove; use select-all |
+| Trivial content | "What year was X published?" | Test concepts, not trivia |
+| Grammatical cue | "An ___" eliminates options starting with consonants | Check grammar |
+
+## Feedback Design
+
+### Effective Feedback Principles
+
+1. **Timely** — as close to the performance as possible
+2. **Specific** — points to exact elements, not just "good job"
+3. **Actionable** — tells the learner what to do next
+4. **Focused** — 2-3 points maximum per feedback instance
+5. **Growth-oriented** — focuses on the work, not the person
+
+### Feedback Framework
+
+```markdown
+1. What was done well (specific): "Your thesis statement clearly
+   states a debatable claim supported by your three main arguments."
+
+2. What needs improvement (specific): "The second body paragraph
+   presents evidence but doesn't explain how it supports your thesis."
+
+3. Next step (actionable): "Add 2-3 sentences after each piece of
+   evidence explaining the connection to your central argument."
+```
+
+### Feedback Timing
+
+| When | Type | Purpose |
+|------|------|---------|
+| Immediate | Correct/incorrect with explanation | Factual knowledge, procedures |
+| Delayed (hours) | Detailed written feedback | Complex tasks, essays, projects |
+| Self-paced | Model answers for self-comparison | Building self-assessment skills |
+| Peer | Structured peer review with rubric | Developing evaluative judgment |