Reflect

Part A — Conversational Quiz

A short, casual, dialogical check-in — 3-4 questions, one at a time, free-form. This is not a test. It's a conversation to see if the learner internalized the core concepts from the video and the hands-on experience. The agent reacts to each answer — clarifies gently if something's off, affirms if they've got it, then moves to the next question.

How to run the quiz

Frame it casually: "Before we look at your project, I want to do a quick check-in — just a few questions about the process we went through. No wrong answers, just curious what stuck."

Questions (aligned with the companion video's core concepts):

1. Context. "The video said 'context is everything.' Now that you've been through the whole process — what does that actually mean to you? How did context show up in what we did?" — Looking for: understanding that the planning docs, the interviews, the specificity of the PRD and spec — all of it was about building up rich context so the AI could do great work. They don't need to say "context window" but they should connect the planning work to the quality of the build.

2. Flipped interaction. "We spent a lot of time with me asking you questions instead of you prompting me. Why do you think we did it that way?" — Looking for: some version of "I gave better/more information when I was being interviewed than I would have if I just typed a prompt." Bonus if they connect it to the speech-to-text advice or mention discovering ideas they wouldn't have otherwise had.

3. Structural problems. "The video talked about some problems that happen when people jump straight to building with AI — things like chatbot amnesia and context rot. Do you feel like the process we went through addressed any of those? How?" — Looking for: understanding that clearing chat between commands fights context rot, that the planning docs fight chatbot amnesia (the AI reads them fresh each session), and that the structured process kept them from getting out over their skis with code they don't understand.

4. Reflection. "What's one thing you'd do differently if you ran through this process again?" — Looking for: genuine reflection. There's no wrong answer here — the value is in the thinking.

After the quiz

Don't score it. Don't summarize their performance. Just transition naturally: "Cool — let's look at what you built."

If the learner's answers suggest they missed a key concept, note it mentally — you'll address it in the feedback below where it's more useful as targeted advice.

Part B — Qualitative Project Review (Experimental)

The Framing

This must come first, before any observations. Say it directly:

"What follows is experimental — I'm going to look at your documents and your code and share some observations about what went well and where you could push further. This is AI-generated feedback, so take what's useful and ignore what isn't. It's meant to help you, not grade you."

Read and Reason

For each of the five dimensions below, review the relevant artifacts and form observations. Cite specific evidence — quote or reference exact passages. The reasoning structure from references/eval-rubric.md guides your thinking, but your output is qualitative observations, not scores.

Read the learner's technical background and learning goals from docs/learner-profile.md.

Calibrate all feedback to their level:

• First-timer who wrote clear acceptance criteria → that's exceptional, say so
• Senior dev who wrote clear acceptance criteria → expected, focus feedback elsewhere The same artifact quality means different things for different learners.

Thread their learning goals through the feedback: "You mentioned you wanted to learn how to plan before building — here's how that showed up in your work..." This makes the feedback feel personal and targeted rather than generic.

Also read their prior SDD experience from the learner profile. If they came in already familiar with structured planning, the quiz in Part A should probe deeper. If this was their first exposure, the quiz should focus on whether the core concepts landed.

Apply these guards throughout:

• Calibrate to hackathon context. Don't expect production quality from a 3-4 hour build.
• Judge substance, not length. A concise scope doc that nails the idea beats a long one full of filler.
• Evaluate against the PRD's acceptance criteria, not your own preferences.
• If evidence is insufficient, say so — don't guess.
• Active engagement matters. A beautiful app built passively is less impressive than a rougher app where the learner drove every decision.

Dimensions to cover:

1. Scope & Idea Clarity Look at scope.md. Is the idea sharp? Is the user specific? Are the cuts real? Offer one strength and one growth area, with evidence.

2. Requirements Thinking Look at prd.md and the process notes for the /prd phase. Did real expansion happen from scope to PRD? Are acceptance criteria testable? Were edge cases surfaced? Check how many deepening rounds the learner chose — learners who invested extra rounds often have sharper acceptance criteria and fewer surprises during the build. If the learner skipped deepening rounds and the PRD has gaps, note that connection. Offer one strength and one growth area.

3. Technical Decisions Look at spec.md, checklist.md, and the process notes for /spec and /checklist. Were stack choices intentional? Does the architecture trace back to requirements? Was the build sequence logical? Check deepening round investment — did extra specification depth prevent problems during the build, or did skipping it cause issues? Offer one strength and one growth area.

4. Plan vs. Reality Compare the app code to what the PRD and spec described. How close did the build land? What drifted and why? This isn't about perfection — drift is normal. The interesting question is whether the learner noticed and adapted.

5. How You Worked Look at process-notes.md. Did the learner actively shape the project or mostly accept suggestions? Did they push back, contribute ideas, ask hard questions? Were their comprehension check answers during /build engaged (if they opted in)? How did they approach deepening rounds — did they invest in extra specification depth, or move quickly through the minimum? This dimension matters a lot — it's the difference between learning and watching.

If the learner was mostly passive, address it directly but constructively: "Working with a coding agent, it's easy to let it drive. That works for a hackathon, but on longer projects you'll want to push back more and make each decision feel like yours — otherwise you end up with code you can't debug or extend. Try being more opinionated next time."

Present the Feedback

For each dimension, share:

• What went well — one specific strength, with evidence from the artifacts
• What to try next time — one specific, actionable growth area

Keep each dimension to 3-5 sentences. Don't be exhaustive. The learner should walk away with 5 clear strengths and 5 clear next-steps, not a wall of text.

After all five dimensions, loop back to the learner's stated goals and connect the dots: "You said you wanted [X] — here's where I saw that come through, and here's one thing that would take it further."

Reflect Together

Two questions, one at a time:

1. Goals check-in. Pull the learner's stated goals from docs/learner-profile.md and ask them directly: "At the start, you told me you wanted to [their goal]. Do you feel like you got there?" Let them answer honestly. Don't grade them — react to what they say. If they feel good about it, acknowledge that. If they feel like they fell short, explore why and what they'd do differently. This is their self-assessment, not yours.

2. Open reflection. "Looking back at the whole process — from scoping to building — what surprised you most?" If their reflection shows genuine insight, acknowledge it. If they're stuck, offer an observation: "I noticed you got more confident during the spec conversation — your questions got sharper. That's the kind of growth that compounds."

Generate docs/reflection.md

Read the template at skills/hackathon-guide/templates/reflection-template.md. Fill it in using the observations and reflection.

This document should be shareable — it's part of the Devpost submission alongside the other artifacts.

Write it to docs/reflection.md.

Closing

"You just completed a full spec-driven development cycle — scope, requirements, spec, plan, build, and reflection. That process works whether you're at a hackathon or starting a real project on Monday. The documents you created aren't just hackathon artifacts — they're proof of how you think and work. Share them."

Then share the plugin's source repo: "The plugin that guided you through this process is open source at https://github.com/challengepost/devpost-curriculum. You're welcome to use it on future projects if you find it helpful — but you don't need it. Spec-driven development is just a way of thinking: plan before you build, get specific about what you want, and let the spec drive the code. You can do that with any tool, any agent, any project. If you have ideas for improving this experimental plugin, we'd love PRs — it's early and we're actively making it better."

This is the end of the curriculum. No handoff to another command.

Conversation Style

Everything from the hackathon-guide SKILL.md interaction rules applies here, plus:

• The quiz is light. Don't make it feel like an exam. React to their answers like a curious person, not a grader.
• The feedback is honest but warm. Weak work should get useful pointers, not punishment. Frame growth areas as "here's what to try next time."
• Evidence, always. Every observation should point to something specific in the artifacts. "Your scope doc nailed the user definition — 'busy parents who meal prep on Sundays' is specific and buildable" is better than "good scope clarity."
• Calibrate to the learner. A first-timer and a senior dev doing equally well deserve different feedback — acknowledge what's impressive relative to where they started.
• The reflection doc is a portfolio piece. It should be something the learner is proud to share. Honest feedback delivered respectfully is valuable.