teach-guidance
정보
이 스킬은 발표, 문서화, 멘토링과 같은 기술적 상황에서 효과적인 가르침과 설명 기법을 개발자에게 코칭합니다. 콘텐츠 구조화, 다양한 청중의 전문성 수준에 맞춘 조정, 소크라테스식 질문법과 같은 방법을 활용한 명확성 향상을 도와줍니다. 발표 준비, 튜토리얼 제작, 동료 멘토링 시 복잡한 주제를 더 효과적으로 전달하려는 경우에 사용하세요.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/teach-guidanceClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Teach (Guidance)
Guide person → effective teacher/explainer/presenter. AI = teaching coach: assess what to communicate to whom, structure for clarity, rehearse, refine on feedback, support delivery, reflect.
Use When
- Person needs to present tech content + wants prep
- Wants better docs, tutorials, explanations
- Struggles to explain across expertise levels
- Mentoring colleague | junior dev
- Prepping for talk, workshop, knowledge-sharing
- After
learn-guidanceacquired knowledge → now transfer
In
- Required: What teach/explain (topic, concept, system, process)
- Required: Audience (expertise, context, relationship)
- Optional: Format (presentation, doc, 1:1 mentoring, workshop)
- Optional: Time constraints (5m explanation, 30m talk, written)
- Optional: Prev attempts + what didn't work
- Optional: Person's comfort w/ topic (deep expert vs recent learner)
Do
Step 1: Assess — Teaching Challenge
Before structuring, understand full context.
- Ask what teach + why: "What concept needs to land, what if not?"
- ID audience: "Who explaining to? What know already?"
- Assess person's understanding: deep enough to teach? Else suggest
learn-guidancefirst. - ID format: presentation, doc, conversation, code review, pair prog
- Success criteria: "How know audience understood?"
- Surface fears: "What part most nervous?"
Teaching Challenge Matrix:
┌──────────────────┬──────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────┐
│ Challenge Type │ Indicators │ Focus Area │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Knowledge gap │ "I sort of know it │ Deepen their own under- │
│ │ but can't explain it" │ standing first (learn) │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Audience gap │ "I don't know what │ Build audience empathy │
│ │ they already know" │ and calibration │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Structure gap │ "I know it all but │ Organize content into │
│ │ don't know where to │ a narrative arc │
│ │ start" │ │
├──────────────────┼──────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────┤
│ Confidence gap │ "What if they ask │ Practice and preparation │
│ │ something I can't │ for edge cases │
│ │ answer?" │ │
└──────────────────┴──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┘
Got: Clear picture: what, to whom, what format, what constraints, where least confident.
If err: Can't articulate audience → create persona: "Imagine 1 specific person. What know? Care about?" Can't articulate topic → may need to learn deeper first.
Step 2: Structure — Clarity
Help build clear narrative for explanation.
- ID single core msg: "If audience remembers 1 thing, what?"
- Build outward: what context needed before, what details after?
- Inverted pyramid: most important first, supporting after
- Tech content patterns:
- Concept: What → Why → How → Example → Edge cases
- Tutorial: Goal → Prereqs → Steps → Verification → Next steps
- Architecture: Problem → Constraints → Solution → Tradeoffs → Alternatives considered
- Debugging: Symptom → Investigation → Root cause → Fix → Prevention
- Each section clear purpose: doesn't serve core msg → cut
- Plan transitions: "Covered X. Building on that, need to understand Y because..."
Got: Outline where every element serves core msg. Logical + inevitable — each section naturally → next.
If err: Structure keeps growing → scope too broad, cut. Flat (everything same level) → hierarchy needs work, ID primary vs supporting. Resists structure ("just explain naturally") → natural works for simple, fails for complex; structure = scaffold.
Step 3: Practice — Rehearse
Person practices explaining, AI = audience.
- Ask explain as to actual audience
- Listen w/o interrupt first pass — find natural flow
- Note where clear vs confused/vague
- Note jargon audience may not know
- Note skipped steps or assumed knowledge
- Note too long on easy parts, rush hard parts
- Time if constraint
Got: First-draft revealing natural patterns — strengths to build on, habits to adjust. Low-stakes: "Rough draft, not performance."
If err: Freezes/says "don't know where to start" → back to Step 2 structure, explain 1 section at time. Self-critical ("terrible") → redirect specifics: "X very clear — let's match Y to that quality."
Step 4: Refine — Improve from Feedback
Specific, actionable feedback.
- Lead w/ strengths: "X using Y analogy was effective because..."
- ID biggest improvement opp (not all, focus on 1-2)
- Specific alternatives: "Instead of [complex], try [simpler]"
- Curse of knowledge: places expertise → skip steps audience needs?
- Audience calibration: depth right? too shallow/deep?
- Analogies accurate? (Misleading > no analogy)
- Re-explain refined section → test improvement
Got: Targeted feedback measurably improves. Difference between 1st + 2nd attempt felt. Constructive — what to do, not avoid.
If err: Defensive about feedback → reframe "this was unclear" → "audience might not follow here, how clearer?" Refined no better → may be structural (Step 2), back to outline.
Step 5: Deliver — Support During
Live → support during.
- Live: prep answers to likely Q's in advance
- Docs: review written for clarity, structure, audience calibration
- Prep "I don't know" moment: "If asked something can't answer, say: 'Great Q — I'll look into it + follow up.' Always acceptable."
- Encourage interaction: prep check Q's for audience
- Recovery plans: audience lost, bored, ahead?
- Coaching during: brief specific prompts ("slow down", "they look confused — check in")
Got: Person feels prepped + supported. Has answers for likely Q's, strategies for unexpected, confidence not knowing everything OK.
If err: Anxiety primary blocker → address direct: prep reduces anxiety, acknowledging nervousness creates connection. Format keeps changing → accept format + adapt vs control conditions.
Step 6: Reflect — Analyze What Worked
Post-event, guide reflection.
- "What went well? Proud of?"
- "Where audience most engaged? Least?"
- "Anything surprise about audience response?"
- "If could change 1 thing, what?"
- Connect reflection to principles: "Part that worked used [tech]. Apply more broadly."
- ID 1 specific improvement goal next time
- Celebrate accomplishment: teaching = skill improving w/ practice
Got: Concrete insight, not vague feelings. 1 actionable improvement next time.
If err: Only sees negatives → redirect specific moments worked. Only positives → probe areas audience confused. No reflection (moves on) → reflection = where most durable improvement happens, even 5 min matters.
Check
- Challenge assessed before structuring (audience, format, constraints)
- Core msg ID'd, structure organized around it
- Practiced ≥1× before delivery
- Feedback specific, actionable, measurable improvement
- Prepared for Q's, uncertainty, audience adaptation
- Post-delivery reflection ID'd ≥1 specific improvement
- Coaching encouraging throughout — teaching hard, acknowledge
Traps
- Coach content vs teaching: Helping learn material vs present. Need to learn → use
learn-guidancefirst. - Over-structuring: Rigid structure → person's natural voice lost. Structure supports style, not replace.
- Perfectionism trap: Rehearsing endless vs delivering. Diminishing returns — push to delivery.
- Ignore audience diversity: Mixed audience → layered explanation: core for all, details for experts, analogies for newcomers.
- Feedback overload: Too many notes → overwhelms. Focus 1-2 highest impact.
- Neglect emotional prep: Teaching anxiety real. Confidence as important as content.
→
teach— AI self-directed variant for calibrated knowledge transferlearn-guidance— coaching person through learning; prereq to teaching effectivelylisten-guidance— active listening helps teachers respond to audience real-timemeditate-guidance— calm anxiety + focus before teaching event
GitHub 저장소
연관 스킬
executing-plans
디자인executing-plans 스킬은 검토 체크포인트가 포함된 통제된 배치로 실행할 완전한 구현 계획이 있을 때 사용합니다. 이 스킬은 계획을 불러와 비판적으로 검토한 후, 소규모 배치(기본값 3개 작업)로 작업을 실행하면서 각 배치 사이에 진행 상황을 아키텍트 검토를 위해 보고합니다. 이를 통해 내재된 품질 관리 체크포인트를 갖춘 체계적인 구현이 보장됩니다.
requesting-code-review
디자인이 스킬은 코드 변경 사항을 요구 사항에 따라 분석하기 위해 코드 리뷰어 하위 에이전트를 호출합니다. 작업 완료 후, 주요 기능 구현 후, 또는 메인 브랜치에 병합하기 전에 사용해야 합니다. 이 리뷰는 현재 구현체와 원래 계획을 비교하여 문제를 조기에 발견하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
connect-mcp-server
디자인이 스킬은 개발자들이 HTTP, stdio 또는 SSE 전송 방식을 통해 MCP 서버를 Claude Code에 연결하는 포괄적인 가이드를 제공합니다. GitHub, Notion 및 사용자 정의 API와 같은 외부 서비스를 통합하기 위한 설치, 구성, 인증 및 보안을 다룹니다. MCP 통합 설정, 외부 도구 구성 또는 Claude의 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 작업 시 활용하세요.
web-cli-teleport
디자인이 스킬은 작업 분석을 기반으로 개발자가 Claude Code 웹 인터페이스와 CLI 인터페이스 중 선택할 수 있도록 돕고, 두 환경 간 원활한 세션 텔레포트를 가능하게 합니다. 웹, CLI 또는 모바일 환경 전환 시 세션 상태와 컨텍스트를 관리하여 워크플로를 최적화합니다. 다양한 단계에서 서로 다른 도구가 필요한 복잡한 프로젝트에 사용하세요.
