30 Claude prompts for professors

You are a university professor experienced in building analytic rubrics that make grading consistent across many papers. <context> You are assigning a research paper and need a detailed analytic rubric to grade it consistently and communicate expectations to students. </context> <inputs> - Assignment description: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "8 to 10 page argumentative research paper using at least 6 peer-reviewed sources"] - Course level: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "upper-level undergraduate"] - Dimensions you want graded: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "thesis and argument, use of evidence, organization, writing mechanics, citation format"] - Point total: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "100 points"] </inputs> <task> Build an analytic rubric with the stated dimensions as rows and 4 performance levels as columns (e.g. excellent, proficient, developing, inadequate), a specific point range per level per dimension summing to the stated total, and a concrete descriptor in each cell (not just "good" or "weak") that a TA could apply consistently without knowing the professor's personal preferences. </task> <constraints> - Point ranges per row must sum exactly to the stated total across the levels. - Every cell needs a specific, observable descriptor, not a one-word label. - Dimensions must match exactly what was requested, don't add or drop categories. </constraints> <format> A rubric table: rows are dimensions, columns are performance levels with point ranges and descriptors in each cell. </format>

You are a university professor giving rubric-based written feedback on a submitted student paper. <context> A student has submitted a paper and you need scored, specific feedback tied to your actual rubric rather than general comments. </context> <inputs> - Rubric dimensions and point values: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "thesis (20), evidence (30), organization (20), mechanics (15), citations (15)"] - Student's paper text: [PLACEHOLDER, paste the full draft or key excerpts] </inputs> <task> Score the draft on each stated rubric dimension with a specific point value and a two to three sentence justification quoting the student's actual text, then provide exactly 3 prioritized revision suggestions ordered by point impact, each referencing a specific passage from the draft. </task> <constraints> - Justifications and revision suggestions must reference the actual submitted text, not generic praise or criticism. - Scores must fall within the stated point values per dimension. - Limit to exactly 3 prioritized revisions so the feedback is actionable, not overwhelming. </constraints> <format> A rubric scorecard table (dimension, score, justification) followed by 3 numbered, prioritized revision suggestions with quoted references. </format>

You are a university professor preparing a norming session so multiple teaching assistants grade the same assignment consistently. <context> Several TAs will grade sections of the same assignment and you need a norming guide with anchor examples so their scoring stays consistent with each other. </context> <inputs> - Assignment and rubric: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "problem set, graded on correctness (60%) and shown work (40%)"] - Common grading disagreements from past semesters: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "TAs disagree on partial credit for a correct answer with no shown work"] </inputs> <task> Write a norming guide that restates the rubric with extra clarity, resolves the stated common disagreement with an explicit rule and a worked anchor example (what score it gets and why), and adds two more worked anchor examples at different quality levels so TAs can calibrate before grading independently. </task> <constraints> - The rule resolving the stated disagreement must be unambiguous and directly usable during grading. - Each anchor example must include an actual sample response and the exact score it should receive with reasoning. - Keep the guide short enough to review in a 15 to 20 minute norming meeting. </constraints> <format> A norming guide document: restated rubric, the resolved disagreement rule, and 3 worked anchor examples with scores and reasoning. </format>

You are a university professor setting up a structured peer review activity for a writing-intensive course. <context> You want students to give each other useful, structured feedback on a draft assignment before final submission, using a rubric so the peer feedback is consistent and actually useful. </context> <inputs> - Assignment being peer reviewed: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "5-page argumentative essay draft"] - Number of peer reviewers per paper: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "2"] - Aspects you most want reviewed: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "clarity of thesis, strength of evidence, one thing to keep, one thing to change"] </inputs> <task> Write student-facing instructions for the peer review activity (how to give useful feedback, what not to do like only commenting on grammar) and a structured peer review form with specific prompts covering the stated aspects, ending with a required "one thing to keep, one thing to change" summary. </task> <constraints> - Instructions must explicitly discourage vague feedback like "looks good" or only grammar corrections. - The form must map directly to the stated aspects the professor wants reviewed. - Keep the form completable in 15 to 20 minutes per paper. </constraints> <format> Student-facing instructions followed by a structured peer review form with numbered prompts. </format>

You are a university professor who wants a defensible, specific rubric for grading seminar discussion participation. <context> You grade a portion of the course grade on seminar participation and want a rubric that goes beyond "talked a lot" so grading is fair and explainable if a student disputes it. </context> <inputs> - Percent of grade tied to participation: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "15%"] - What good participation looks like in your course: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "references the reading, builds on classmates' points, asks substantive questions"] - Class format: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "weekly 3-hour seminar, 12 students"] </inputs> <task> Build a 4-level participation rubric (e.g. excellent, good, adequate, needs improvement) with specific, observable behaviors at each level tied to the stated definition of good participation, plus guidance on how to track this fairly across a semester (e.g. a quick post-class log format) without relying only on memory. </task> <constraints> - Descriptors must be observable behaviors, not personality traits ("confident" or "quiet" are not acceptable descriptors). - Account for different participation styles, don't penalize a thoughtful, less-frequent contributor equivalently to someone who never engages. - Include a simple tracking method a professor can realistically use every week. </constraints> <format> A 4-level rubric table with observable descriptors, followed by a short tracking log template. </format>

You are a university professor preparing a detailed lecture outline for an upcoming class session. <context> You need a full lecture outline for a specific topic, structured for a set class length, with concrete examples and discussion prompts built in rather than a bare list of bullet points. </context> <inputs> - Course and topic: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Intro to Sociology, social stratification"] - Class length: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "50 minutes"] - Key concepts that must be covered: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "class, status, power, Weber's three dimensions"] </inputs> <task> Build a time-stamped lecture outline covering the stated key concepts, with a concrete real-world example illustrating each concept, two discussion questions placed at natural points to check understanding mid-lecture, and a closing question that previews the next class's topic. </task> <constraints> - Time stamps must sum to the stated class length exactly. - Every key concept needs at least one concrete, specific example, not an abstract description alone. - Discussion questions must be open-ended enough to generate real discussion, not yes/no questions. </constraints> <format> A time-stamped outline (time, section, content, example, discussion question where applicable) ending with the closing preview question. </format>

You are a university professor designing an active-learning activity to break up a lecture-heavy class session. <context> You want a specific in-class activity (not more lecture) that gets students actively applying a concept during a portion of class time. </context> <inputs> - Concept to apply: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "opportunity cost in economic decision-making"] - Activity time available: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "15 minutes"] - Class size and format: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "40 students, in-person, can work in pairs"] </inputs> <task> Design a specific activity (think-pair-share, case mini-analysis, or structured debate, whichever best fits the concept) that fits the stated time and class size, including exact instructions to give students, a realistic scenario or prompt for them to work through, and a 2 to 3 minute debrief plan to draw out the concept explicitly at the end. </task> <constraints> - Activity must fit inside the stated time including setup and debrief. - Instructions given to students must be specific enough to run without further clarification. - The debrief must explicitly connect the activity back to the target concept, not leave the link implicit. </constraints> <format> An activity plan: setup instructions, the scenario/prompt given to students, timing breakdown, and the debrief questions. </format>

You are a university professor drafting the content structure for a lecture slide deck before building the actual slides. <context> You need the content and talking points for each slide of a lecture mapped out before you build the deck, so the structure and pacing are right first. </context> <inputs> - Topic and target number of slides: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "cell respiration, 12 slides"] - Class length: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "50 minutes"] - Audience level: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "second-year undergraduate biology majors"] </inputs> <task> Outline the content for each of the stated number of slides: a slide title, 2 to 3 bullet points of content (not full paragraphs, slide-appropriate brevity), and a one to two sentence talking point for the professor to say while presenting that slide that isn't just reading the bullets aloud. </task> <constraints> - Bullets must be genuinely slide-length (short phrases), not paragraphs pasted onto a slide. - The talking point per slide must add information beyond the bullets, not restate them. - Total slide count and rough pacing must fit the stated class length (roughly 3 to 4 minutes per slide). </constraints> <format> A numbered slide-by-slide outline: slide title, bullet points, talking point. </format>

You are a university professor preparing a review session before a final exam. <context> You want a structured guide for a review session that covers the highest-value material efficiently rather than re-lecturing the whole semester. </context> <inputs> - Course and exam format: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Cognitive Psychology final, mix of multiple choice and 2 essay questions"] - Topics covered all semester: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "memory, attention, perception, language, decision-making"] - Review session length: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "75 minutes"] - Topics students have historically struggled with: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "working memory models, heuristics and biases"] </inputs> <task> Build a time-allocated review session plan that weights more time toward the stated historically difficult topics, includes 2 to 3 practice questions per major topic in the exam's actual format, and ends with a short "what to focus your remaining study time on" summary for students to take away. </task> <constraints> - Time allocation must clearly favor the stated difficult topics without skipping the others entirely. - Practice questions must match the stated exam format exactly. - Keep the closing summary to 5 or fewer specific priorities, not a restated topic list. </constraints> <format> A time-allocated session plan (time, topic, activity, practice questions) followed by the closing study-priority summary. </format>

You are a university professor who builds original case studies to connect course theory to real professional practice. <context> You want an original case study that applies a course concept to a realistic professional scenario, used for in-class discussion or a written assignment. </context> <inputs> - Course concept to apply: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "stakeholder theory in business ethics"] - Professional field for the scenario: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "a mid-size manufacturing company facing a plant closure decision"] - Length target: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "1 page case, 4 discussion questions"] </inputs> <task> Write an original case study of the stated length grounded in the given professional field, presenting a realistic dilemma that requires applying the stated course concept to resolve, with named characters and specific realistic details (numbers, roles, constraints), followed by 4 discussion questions that move from comprehension to application to evaluation. </task> <constraints> - The case must be original and specific, with concrete realistic details, not a generic vague scenario. - At least one discussion question must require students to argue a position and defend it, not just describe the facts. - Keep the case within the stated length target. </constraints> <format> The case study narrative followed by 4 numbered discussion questions ordered from comprehension to evaluation. </format>

You are a university professor who writes exams that directly assess stated course learning outcomes rather than testing recall alone. <context> You need an exam covering specific learning outcomes with a defined mix of question types. </context> <inputs> - Learning outcomes being tested: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "1. explain the causes of the 2008 financial crisis, 2. apply supply and demand analysis to a market shock, 3. evaluate a policy response"] - Question mix and count: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "8 multiple choice, 3 short answer, 1 essay"] - Course level: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "upper-level undergraduate economics"] </inputs> <task> Write the exam matching the stated question mix and count, with each question tagged to the specific learning outcome it assesses, plausible distractors for multiple choice (no obviously wrong options), and a full answer key including a model answer outline for the essay question. </task> <constraints> - Every question must map to exactly one of the stated learning outcomes, tag it explicitly. - Multiple choice distractors must reflect real misconceptions, not random wrong answers. - Cover all stated outcomes at least once across the question set. </constraints> <format> The exam (numbered questions labeled by type and outcome tag) followed by a full answer key with a model essay outline. </format>

You are a university professor in a quantitative or technical field who writes problem sets that scaffold difficulty across a set. <context> You need a problem set on a specific technical topic that progresses from foundational to challenging so students build confidence before tackling the hardest items. </context> <inputs> - Course and topic: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Differential Equations, first-order linear equations"] - Number of problems: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "8"] - Target completion time: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "90 minutes"] </inputs> <task> Write the stated number of problems on the given technical topic, ordered from foundational to challenging, using realistic parameters (not trivial round numbers where the topic calls for messier ones), and provide a complete worked solution for every problem showing each step, not just the final answer. </task> <constraints> - Solutions must show full working, a TA should be able to grade partial credit from the steps shown. - Total estimated time to complete must roughly match the stated target. - No two problems should test the exact same sub-case, vary the setup meaningfully across the set. </constraints> <format> A numbered problem set followed by a fully worked solution set with all steps shown. </format>

You are a university professor writing a clear research paper assignment prompt that leaves no ambiguity about deliverables. <context> You need a formal assignment prompt for a research paper, specific enough that students know exactly what's expected without a separate FAQ. </context> <inputs> - Topic scope: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "students choose a specific policy debate within environmental economics"] - Length and source requirements: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "8 to 10 pages, at least 6 peer-reviewed sources"] - Key milestones if staged: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "topic proposal week 6, draft week 10, final week 14"] </inputs> <task> Write the assignment prompt: the purpose of the assignment tied to a course learning outcome, the topic scope and how to choose within it, formatting and source requirements stated precisely, the staged milestones with what's due at each, and a short section on what distinguishes an excellent paper from an adequate one at a high level (with the full rubric referenced separately). </task> <constraints> - Every requirement (length, sources, format) must be stated as a specific, checkable number, not "a sufficient amount". - Milestones must be listed with clear individual deliverables, not just dates. - Keep the excellent-vs-adequate guidance to 3 to 4 sentences, pointing students to the full rubric rather than duplicating it. </constraints> <format> A formatted assignment prompt with headers: Purpose, Topic, Requirements, Milestones, What Makes This Excellent. </format>

You are a university professor designing a take-home exam that remains rigorous under open-resource conditions. <context> You are giving a take-home exam and want questions that are hard to answer by simply searching or pasting into an AI tool, along with clear instructions on what's permitted. </context> <inputs> - Course and topic scope: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Constitutional Law, freedom of speech doctrine"] - Time window given to students: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "48 hours, open book and open note"] - Your stance on AI tool use: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "not permitted for generating answer text, permitted for checking grammar only"] </inputs> <task> Write 3 exam questions that require applying course concepts to a novel fact pattern or scenario not found in the assigned readings (so a generic search or AI answer would need genuine course-specific reasoning to be correct), plus a clear integrity statement reflecting the stated AI stance and what students must attest to on submission. </task> <constraints> - Each question must require applying reasoning to a scenario invented for this exam, not one that already exists in course materials or common sources. - The integrity statement must state the AI policy in specific, unambiguous terms matching the given stance. - Provide a model answer outline for each question showing the specific reasoning expected, not just a final conclusion. </constraints> <format> The 3 exam questions with novel scenarios, the integrity statement, and a model answer outline for each question. </format>

You are a university professor overseeing a capstone or final project course who writes clear project briefs with built-in milestones. <context> You need a capstone project brief that gives students a real deliverable target and a staged timeline so work doesn't pile up at the end of the semester. </context> <inputs> - Project type and scope: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "a market analysis and go-to-market plan for a hypothetical product, group project, 4 students per team"] - Final deliverable format: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "15-page written report plus a 10-minute presentation"] - Semester length and number of milestone checkpoints: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "15 weeks, 3 checkpoints"] </inputs> <task> Write a capstone brief describing the project scope and final deliverable format precisely, then break the semester into the stated number of milestone checkpoints, each with a specific interim deliverable, a grading weight, and feedback the team should expect to receive at that stage. </task> <constraints> - Each milestone must have a concrete, gradable interim deliverable, not just "progress check-in". - Milestone weights plus the final deliverable weight must sum to 100%. - Space milestones realistically across the stated semester length, avoid clustering them all near the end. </constraints> <format> A project brief document: Scope, Final Deliverable, then a milestone table (checkpoint, week, deliverable, weight, feedback type). </format>

You are a university professor reaching out to a student whose performance has been declining, before the situation becomes a crisis. <context> A student has missed multiple assignments or shown a drop in grades, and a personal outreach email tends to catch problems earlier than a form letter. </context> <inputs> - Student's name and course: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Maria Chen, Intro to Statistics"] - What you've observed: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "missed the last two problem sets, absent from three consecutive classes"] - Support resources available at your institution: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "tutoring center, academic advising, counseling services"] </inputs> <task> Draft a short, non-judgmental email that names the specific pattern observed, invites the student to office hours or a brief call, and lists the stated support resources without assuming a cause. </task> <constraints> - Do not speculate about the reason for the decline, ask rather than assume. - Keep the tone supportive, not disciplinary, this is outreach not a warning notice. - Cap the email at 150 words so it doesn't read as a lecture. </constraints> <format> A single ready-to-send email with Subject and Body. </format>

You are a university professor responding to a student who is disputing a grade on a specific assignment. <context> A student has emailed disputing a grade, and the response needs to be professional, grounded in the actual rubric, and either hold the grade or explain a path to review, without escalating the conflict. </context> <inputs> - Assignment and grade given: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Essay 2, grade of 78/100"] - Student's stated reason for disputing: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "believes the thesis critique was too harsh, wants a regrade"] - Rubric or grading criteria used: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "thesis (25), evidence (25), organization (25), mechanics (25)"] </inputs> <task> Draft a reply that addresses the student's specific stated concern by referencing the rubric criteria it falls under, explains the reasoning behind the grade on that dimension, and offers a clear, policy-based next step if the student wants to pursue it further. </task> <constraints> - Reference the actual rubric dimension the dispute relates to, don't respond in generic terms. - Do not promise a grade change in the email, only a fair review process. - Keep the tone calm and non-defensive, acknowledge the student's right to ask. </constraints> <format> A single ready-to-send email with Subject and Body. </format>

You are a university professor who collects informal feedback partway through the semester to catch problems before the official end-of-course evaluation. <context> You want a short mid-semester survey and a plan for how to respond to likely themes, so feedback actually changes something before the semester ends. </context> <inputs> - Course and format: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Intro to Marketing, 45 students, twice-weekly lecture"] - Anything you already suspect might be an issue: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "pace might be too fast for the first third of the class"] </inputs> <task> Write a 5 to 6 question anonymous survey (a mix of rating scale and one open-ended question) covering pace, clarity, workload, and engagement, then draft a plan for how you'll respond to the 3 most likely feedback themes, including the suspected issue, with a concrete change for each. </task> <constraints> - Keep the survey completable in under 3 minutes so response rate stays high. - Every anticipated theme in the response plan needs a specific, doable change, not a vague acknowledgment. - Include a one-line plan for how you'll communicate the changes back to students, closing the feedback loop visibly. </constraints> <format> The survey questions followed by a response plan table (Likely Theme | Planned Change | How It's Communicated). </format>

You are a university professor who wants consistent, fair replies to student extension requests. <context> Extension requests come in constantly with different reasons, and replying case-by-case from scratch leads to inconsistent decisions students notice and compare. </context> <inputs> - Your actual extension policy: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "up to 48 hours automatically granted once per semester, no questions asked, beyond that requires documentation"] - Common request scenarios you get: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "illness, family emergency, overlapping deadlines in other courses, no reason given"] </inputs> <task> Write a reply template for each stated common scenario that applies the actual policy consistently, plus one general template for a scenario not covered by the listed ones that asks a clarifying question rather than guessing. </task> <constraints> - Every template must apply the stated policy exactly, don't invent more lenient or stricter terms per scenario. - Keep each template under 60 words. - The "no reason given" template must not accuse the student, just restate the policy and what's needed to use it. </constraints> <format> A labeled set of email templates, one per scenario, ready to copy and personalize. </format>

You are a university professor who has noticed a potential academic integrity issue and needs to raise it with the student directly before deciding whether to refer it formally. <context> You've noticed something in a submission, such as an unusual similarity to another source or a match flagged by a similarity checker, that needs to be raised with the student factually, before any formal process starts. </context> <inputs> - What was observed: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "39% similarity match flagged by the plagiarism checker against a source not cited in the paper"] - Assignment: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Essay 1, due October 3"] - Your institution's next step if the conversation doesn't resolve it: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "referral to the academic integrity office"] </inputs> <task> Draft an email that states the specific factual observation without accusing the student of wrongdoing, invites them to a meeting to discuss it, and briefly notes what happens next procedurally if a meeting doesn't resolve the concern. </task> <constraints> - State only the factual observation (the match, the percentage, the source), never conclude the student cheated. - Do not include any threat or punitive language, this is a fact-finding invitation, not a verdict. - Note that this only drafts the outreach email. Any formal integrity finding or sanction must go through the institution's official academic integrity process. </constraints> <format> A single ready-to-send email with Subject and Body. </format>

You are a university professor writing a letter of recommendation for a student applying to graduate school. <context> A student has asked for a graduate school recommendation letter, and you want a strong, specific draft built from concrete examples rather than generic praise. </context> <inputs> - Student's name and program applying to: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Daniel Osei, PhD program in Clinical Psychology"] - How you know the student and for how long: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "research assistant in my lab for 2 years, also took 2 of my courses"] - 2 to 3 specific examples of strong work or qualities: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "independently designed a follow-up study after noticing a confound in the original protocol, presented at the undergraduate research symposium"] </inputs> <task> Draft a full recommendation letter that opens with your relationship and how well you know the student, develops the stated specific examples into concrete narrative paragraphs rather than a restated list, and closes with a clear statement of your level of recommendation. </task> <constraints> - Use only the specific examples given, don't invent additional accomplishments or metrics. - Avoid generic praise unsupported by an example, every claimed strength needs a specific instance backing it. - Match the tone and specificity expected for the stated program level, a PhD letter reads differently than a letter for a master's program. </constraints> <format> A formatted letter with date, salutation, 3 to 4 body paragraphs, and a closing. </format>

You are a university professor mentoring a student or junior colleague on a conference abstract submission. <context> Someone you're mentoring has drafted a conference abstract and needs specific, structured feedback before the submission deadline, not just a general "looks good". </context> <inputs> - The draft abstract text: [PLACEHOLDER, paste the full draft, typically 250 to 300 words] - Conference and its stated abstract criteria if known: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "regional psychology conference, criteria are novelty, methodological rigor, clarity"] </inputs> <task> Give structured feedback against the stated criteria, or standard abstract criteria (background, methods, results, significance) if none are given, identifying what's missing or underdeveloped in each section, then provide a revised version of the abstract incorporating the fixes. </task> <constraints> - Feedback must reference the actual submitted text, quoting the weak sentence being critiqued. - The revised abstract must stay within the same word count as the original draft, unless the original clearly exceeds a stated conference limit. - Do not fabricate results or data not present in the original draft to fill gaps, flag the gap instead. </constraints> <format> Structured feedback by section (Background, Methods, Results, Significance) followed by a revised abstract. </format>

You are a university professor serving as a peer reviewer for an academic journal. <context> You've been asked to review a submitted manuscript and need a structured reviewer report that's specific and useful to the editor and authors, built from your own assessment notes. </context> <inputs> - Manuscript topic and your rough assessment notes: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "study on remote work productivity, sample size seems small for the claimed effect size, literature review misses two key recent studies, methodology section otherwise solid"] - Recommendation leaning: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "major revision"] </inputs> <task> Turn the assessment notes into a structured peer review report: a brief summary of the manuscript's contribution, major concerns each written as a specific, actionable point tied to a notes item, minor concerns, and a final recommendation matching the stated leaning with a one-paragraph justification. </task> <constraints> - Every major concern must trace back to something in the stated assessment notes, don't introduce concerns not implied by the notes. - Keep the tone constructive and specific, reviewer reports that are vague or harsh don't help authors revise. - The final recommendation must match the stated leaning and be justified, not just asserted. </constraints> <format> A structured reviewer report: Summary, Major Concerns (numbered), Minor Concerns (numbered), Recommendation with justification. </format>

You are a university professor preparing a required annual self-evaluation for a merit review or reappointment file. <context> You need a narrative self-evaluation covering teaching, research, and service for the year, built from your actual activity rather than a blank-page start. </context> <inputs> - Teaching activity this year: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "taught 4 courses, redesigned Intro Statistics into a flipped format, course evaluation average rose from 3.9 to 4.4"] - Research activity this year: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "1 paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, 1 under review, presented at 2 conferences"] - Service activity this year: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "chaired the curriculum committee, reviewed 3 journal submissions, advised 2 student clubs"] </inputs> <task> Write a three-section narrative (Teaching, Research, Service) that turns each stated activity into a specific accomplishment statement with a measurable result where one exists, framed for a review committee that rewards specificity over volume of activity listed. </task> <constraints> - Use only the activities and numbers given, don't inflate or add unstated accomplishments. - Where a measurable result exists in the input, such as the evaluation score increase, lead with it, don't bury it. - Keep each section to 2 to 3 paragraphs, committees skim long self-evaluations. </constraints> <format> A three-section narrative document: Teaching, Research, Service, each 2 to 3 paragraphs. </format>

You are a university professor chairing a departmental committee. <context> You're running a committee meeting and need both a clear agenda beforehand and a structured summary with action items afterward, without spending an hour writing minutes. </context> <inputs> - Committee name and purpose: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Curriculum Committee, reviewing 2 new course proposals this term"] - Topics to cover this meeting: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "vote on Course Proposal A, discuss Course Proposal B revisions, set next semester's review timeline"] - Rough notes from the meeting once it happens: [PLACEHOLDER, e.g. "Proposal A passed 5-1, Proposal B needs the lab component revised before next vote, timeline set for first meeting in January"] </inputs> <task> First produce a timeboxed agenda for the stated topics. Once the rough notes are provided, turn them into a structured meeting summary with decisions made, open items, and a clear action item list with an owner and rough deadline for each. </task> <constraints> - The agenda's time allocations must sum to a stated or reasonable total meeting length, default to 60 minutes if none is given. - Every action item in the summary must have an owner and a rough deadline, not just a description. - Decisions must be stated definitively, such as "Proposal A: approved 5-1", not softened into a suggestion. </constraints> <format> Two outputs: a timeboxed agenda, and once notes are given, a structured summary with Decisions, Open Items, and Action Items table. </format>