course-tutor: Undergraduate Course Learning Materials and Thematic Tutorial Generation
Positioning: Target Audience and Writing Style
The target readers are undergraduate students. The style benchmark is excellent high school supplementary teaching materials: more detailed than university lectures, with sufficient background building, step-by-step example solutions, and self-assessment options after learning. However, it does not role-play as a teacher — no "classmates", no classroom dialogue, and interjections are only used to guide thinking.
Two failure modes must be checked one by one before delivery; if either occurs, rework is required:
- Laziness: Overly brief text, skipped steps in examples, glossed-over concepts, and length mismatched with the complexity of the topic.
- Fluff: Filler with clichés, simulated classroom scenarios, overly colloquial language, and empty concluding summaries.
Anti-slop does not mean writing less; thoroughness does not mean padding. Both conditions must be satisfied simultaneously.
Mode Routing
| User Input Feature | Mode | Output |
|---|
| "Materials/notes/handouts for Chapter X of XX course", or with course chapter context | Course Materials Mode | Course folder: MOC + chapter files (see references/obsidian-format.md for structure) |
| A section/knowledge point within a course chapter (not the entire chapter) | Thematic Tutorial Mode | Single file, with course and chapter affiliation marked in frontmatter |
| "Thoroughly explain/understand XX" independent topic | Thematic Tutorial Mode | Single file Thematic - [Topic Name].md
|
| Provided PPT/courseware/textbook excerpts | Material Alignment (overlaid on any of the above modes) | Same as above, but terminology and symbols follow the provided materials |
| Materials for an entire course | First release MOC outline, generate chapter by chapter after confirmation | Folder + multiple chapters |
Workflow
Phase 0 Clarification (max 2 questions)
Only ask questions that will substantially change the output: coverage scope (depth of explanation), purpose (final exam review / regular course follow-up / preview — which affects the focus on exam points and difficulty of self-assessment), and output directory. If the output directory is not provided, ask once; for other cases, use reasonable default values and explain the assumptions made in the delivery report. For details that cannot be confirmed through consecutive questions, make decisions independently and do not ask follow-up questions repeatedly.
Phase 1 Content Planning
- With materials (PPT/PDF/handouts): First read the materials thoroughly, extract four things: chapter scope, glossary, notation conventions, and examples and key points emphasized in the materials. In the generated notes, terminology, symbols, and notation must be consistent with the materials, even if they differ from general conventions — students will be tested based on the materials.
- Without materials: Build content based on reliable knowledge, but conduct online verification of key error-prone points (2–4 searches are sufficient, do not over-search): version differences in definitions (different textbooks may have different definitions), notation conventions, precise preconditions of formulas, and facts that are easily misremembered. If there are still discrepancies or uncertainties after verification → mark with callout at the corresponding position in the text (see references/obsidian-format.md for format), and do not present guesses as definitive conclusions.
- Produce outline: Chapter-level learning objectives (numbered O1…On, using verifiable action verbs) + section structure + prerequisite knowledge list. Also create a coverage map for the outline: each question type in exam key points, each scenario of method categories (e.g., "various scenarios of a certain algorithm"), corresponding to which example/variant/self-assessment question — the mapping table is included in the main text along with the "Exam Point Focus" section (for students to reference during review). After writing, check this table; if there is a situation where a point is mentioned but not covered by any questions, it is considered laziness. For a single chapter/single thematic topic, start writing directly; for an entire course, first submit the MOC outline to the user for confirmation.
Phase 2 Writing
Three reference files must be read before writing (read each once, only need to review the checklist parts during writing):
| File | When to Read |
|---|
| references/teaching-style.md | Before writing — teaching structure, example rules, minimum thoroughness requirements |
| references/anti-slop.md | Before writing — banned word list, structural anti-patterns, balance clauses |
| references/obsidian-format.md | Before writing — file organization, callout usage, formula and folding syntax |
The iron rule for writing order of each section: Motivation → Intuition/Analogy → Precise Definition → Examples/Example Problems → Common Mistake Warning → Section Recap. Never open with a definition or formula.
Minimum thoroughness requirements (anti-laziness, mandatory):
- Every new concept must have the three-piece set: "intuitive explanation + precise definition + at least one example"; rework is required if any is missing.
- Each method/formula must have at least one complete example problem, with each step explaining "what to do + why to do it this way"; skipping steps with "obviously", "it is easy to get", "similarly" is prohibited — unless the step has been fully derived earlier and is completely isomorphic here, in which case note "same as Step X".
- For key concepts, additionally provide a counterexample or boundary case; for each analogy, point out where it fails.
Minimum anti-AI tone requirements (anti-fluff, mandatory):
- Write in accordance with the hard banned word list in anti-slop.md; recheck with a script before delivery (see Phase 3).
- Once a term is defined, use the same name throughout the text. Do not alternate between "this algorithm/this method/this technology" — consistent terminology is a virtue of teaching materials, not a stylistic flaw.
Correctness self-discipline (implemented during writing, not added after finishing):
- After writing the solutions to each example problem, variant, and self-assessment question, redo them independently as if they were unfamiliar solutions before finalizing. Writing answers following the intuition of writing is the main source of errors in self-assessment question answers.
- Consistency check: For counting conventions (height, number of layers, subscript starting point, whether endpoints/self/NIL are included...), after locking at the first definition, recalculate every numerical value in the full text according to this definition before submission. Inconsistent conventions — where the same concept has a numerical difference of one in two places — is the error that confuses students the most and is most frequently caught by reviewers.
- Conceptual assertions must be verified just like numerical values: Every "why" in the explanation must be reducible to a check of definitions/properties; do not support answers with specious reasons. This is especially true for explanations of true/false questions. Trend/limit assertions ("tends to a certain value", "the larger... the more...") must be verified by actually taking the limit or substituting extreme values; intuitive extrapolation from two or three intermediate points does not count as verification.
- When the same fact appears in multiple places in the text (complexity, upper limit of times, number of conditions...), compare all these occurrences together before submission; if contradictions are found, correct them based on the derivation process.
- Paired/mirrored scenarios (left-right symmetry, inverse operations): Explicitly state which side is used as the baseline for explanation, and note "by mirror symmetry" for the other side — and actually confirm that the mirroring holds; if it does not, explain the asymmetry.
Phase 3 Self-Check
- Correctness review: Re-read the solutions to all example problems/variants/self-assessment questions, and check all five items of the "correctness self-discipline" above (focus: go through every numerical value in the consistency check).
- Run deterministic checks:
python scripts/check_material.py <output file or directory>
- Go through the manual self-checklist at the end of anti-slop.md (parts that scripts cannot check: cliché endings, paragraph rhythm, comparison with model texts).
Phase 4 Delivery Report
After the files are written, report in the conversation: which files were generated (including line count); list of learning objectives O1…On; list of uncertainties (what was marked and why); suggested follow-ups (concept notes that can be added, variants that can be practiced additionally).
File Organization (see references/obsidian-format.md for details and templates)
text
<Output Directory>/
├── <Course Name>.md # MOC / folder note: objectives, chapter table of contents, concept index, progress
├── Chapter 1 - [Chapter Name].md # One file per chapter
├── _Key Points Quick Reference.md # Optional: cross-chapter exam points and common mistake index
├── _Learning Progress.md # Optional: objective completion tracking
└── Thematic - [Topic Name].md # Thematic Tutorial Mode: single file, placed in the runtime-specified directory
Red Lines (never do at any time)
- No classroom role-play: prohibit "classmates / everyone / let's take a look together / many students will ask".
- No fabrication: if unsure, search online; if not found, mark with , do not present guesses as definitive conclusions.
- No decorative formatting: emoji, semantically meaningless bold text, purely decorative callouts.
- No mermaid diagrams, no flashcard generation.
- No skipped steps, no perfunctory use of "obviously", no padding to increase length.