返回技能列表

teach-guidance

pjt222
更新于 Yesterday
4 次查看
17
2
17
在 GitHub 上查看
设计powerpointaidesign

关于

This skill coaches developers on effective teaching and explanation techniques for technical contexts like presentations, documentation, and mentoring. It helps structure content, calibrate for different audience expertise levels, and improve clarity using methods like Socratic questioning. Use it when preparing for a talk, creating tutorials, or mentoring colleagues to communicate complex topics more effectively.

快速安装

Claude Code

推荐
主要方式
npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code
插件命令备选方式
/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac
Git 克隆备选方式
git clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/teach-guidance

在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能

技能文档

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-guidance acquired 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.

  1. Ask what teach + why: "What concept needs to land, what if not?"
  2. ID audience: "Who explaining to? What know already?"
  3. Assess person's understanding: deep enough to teach? Else suggest learn-guidance first.
  4. ID format: presentation, doc, conversation, code review, pair prog
  5. Success criteria: "How know audience understood?"
  6. 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.

  1. ID single core msg: "If audience remembers 1 thing, what?"
  2. Build outward: what context needed before, what details after?
  3. Inverted pyramid: most important first, supporting after
  4. 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
  5. Each section clear purpose: doesn't serve core msg → cut
  6. 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.

  1. Ask explain as to actual audience
  2. Listen w/o interrupt first pass — find natural flow
  3. Note where clear vs confused/vague
  4. Note jargon audience may not know
  5. Note skipped steps or assumed knowledge
  6. Note too long on easy parts, rush hard parts
  7. 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.

  1. Lead w/ strengths: "X using Y analogy was effective because..."
  2. ID biggest improvement opp (not all, focus on 1-2)
  3. Specific alternatives: "Instead of [complex], try [simpler]"
  4. Curse of knowledge: places expertise → skip steps audience needs?
  5. Audience calibration: depth right? too shallow/deep?
  6. Analogies accurate? (Misleading > no analogy)
  7. 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.

  1. Live: prep answers to likely Q's in advance
  2. Docs: review written for clarity, structure, audience calibration
  3. Prep "I don't know" moment: "If asked something can't answer, say: 'Great Q — I'll look into it + follow up.' Always acceptable."
  4. Encourage interaction: prep check Q's for audience
  5. Recovery plans: audience lost, bored, ahead?
  6. 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.

  1. "What went well? Proud of?"
  2. "Where audience most engaged? Least?"
  3. "Anything surprise about audience response?"
  4. "If could change 1 thing, what?"
  5. Connect reflection to principles: "Part that worked used [tech]. Apply more broadly."
  6. ID 1 specific improvement goal next time
  7. 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-guidance first.
  • 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 transfer
  • learn-guidance — coaching person through learning; prereq to teaching effectively
  • listen-guidance — active listening helps teachers respond to audience real-time
  • meditate-guidance — calm anxiety + focus before teaching event

GitHub 仓库

pjt222/agent-almanac
路径: i18n/caveman-ultra/skills/teach-guidance
0
agentsagentskillsai-assisted-developmentclaude-codeskillsteams

相关推荐技能

executing-plans

设计

该Skill用于当开发者提供完整实施计划时,以受控批次方式执行代码实现。它会先审阅计划并提出疑问,然后分批次执行任务(默认每批3个任务),并在批次间暂停等待审查。关键特性包括分批次执行、内置检查点和架构师审查机制,确保复杂系统实现的可控性。

查看技能

requesting-code-review

设计

该Skill可在完成任务、实现主要功能或合并代码前自动调度代码审查子代理,确保实现符合需求和计划。它支持通过指定git SHA范围进行精准的代码变更审查,帮助开发者在关键节点及时发现潜在问题。核心原则是"早审查、勤审查",适用于开发流程的各个关键阶段。

查看技能

connect-mcp-server

设计

这个Skill指导开发者如何将MCP服务器连接到Claude Code,支持HTTP、stdio和SSE三种传输协议。它涵盖了从安装配置到认证安全的完整流程,适用于集成GitHub、Notion、数据库等外部服务。当开发者需要添加集成、配置外部工具或提及MCP相关功能时,这个Skill能提供实用的操作指南。

查看技能

web-cli-teleport

设计

该Skill帮助开发者根据任务特性选择Claude Code的Web或CLI界面,并指导如何在两种环境间无缝迁移会话。它能分析任务复杂度、迭代需求等要素,推荐最优工作界面和工作流。关键特性包括会话状态管理、环境切换指导和上下文优化建议。

查看技能