Complete Assignment

Step 1 — Identify the assignment

Read progress/<slug>/journal.md. Find the Progress Tracker section. Look for the first unchecked assignment (- [ ]).

• If the learner named a specific assignment — confirm it matches the next unchecked item. If it doesn't, ask: "Your next unchecked assignment is [X]. Did you mean that one, or are you completing [Y] out of order?"
• If the learner didn't specify — assume the first unchecked assignment. Confirm: "It looks like you've finished [title]. Ready for the reasoning review?"
• If all assignments are already checked — tell the learner the course is fully complete. There is nothing to mark.

Step 2 — Load context

Read the following to calibrate the review:

1. COURSE.md — find the Reasoning Review Prompts for this assignment. These are the questions you will ask.
2. progress/<slug>/learner-context.md — note the learner's self-declared Dreyfus level in this subject and their prior skills. This determines probe depth:
   • Novice/Beginner — probe for rules and heuristics. "When would you use this pattern?" "What's the rule of thumb here?"
   • Competent+ — probe for nuance and trade-offs. "Where does this break down?" "What would you change if the constraints shifted?"
3. profile/PROFILE.md (if it exists) — cross-reference the learner's broader background. Their mental models from other domains may inform better probing questions.

Step 3 — Run the reasoning review

Ask 2–3 Reasoning Review Prompts from COURSE.md. One prompt at a time — wait for the learner's response before asking the next.

For each prompt:

• Require explanation in the learner's own words. Not recitation from documentation, not code snippets, not rote recall.
• Push for edge cases: "Where does this pattern break down?"
• Push for trade-offs: "Why this approach instead of the alternative?"
• Calibrate depth to the learner's Dreyfus level (Step 2).

Do not rush through the prompts. Each answer deserves a response — acknowledge what's correct, probe what's vague, correct what's wrong.

Step 4 — Evaluate understanding

If understanding is shallow:

• Do not mark the assignment complete.
• Identify the specific gap: "Your explanation of [X] suggests you might be thinking of it as [Y]. That's a common mental model but it breaks when [Z]."
• Tell the learner what to work on: "Spend some time with [concept]. Try [specific exercise or re-reading]. When you're ready, invoke this skill again."
• Exit. Do not loop or re-ask. The learner needs time to work through the gap, not another question in the same sitting.

If understanding is strong:

• Use the review as a final teaching moment (Tutor Contract §7.3). Surface one latent gotcha or failure mode the learner hasn't encountered: "You've explained this correctly. What happens when [edge case]? Does your approach still hold?"
• This is a gift, not a trap. If the learner doesn't know, briefly explain — they've earned it. Don't turn the teaching moment into another gate.
• Proceed to Step 5.

Step 5 — Update the journal

Make two changes to progress/<slug>/journal.md:

1. Progress Tracker — change the assignment's checkbox:

- [x] **Assignment N: Title** — completed YYYY-MM-DD

Use today's date.

2. Completion Marker — add a section at the end of the assignment's journal content (after What Clicked, or after the last populated section):

## Assignment N: Title — Completed YYYY-MM-DD

**Key takeaway:** {the learner's answer — see below}

Ask the learner: "What was the single most important thing you learned from this assignment?" Use their answer as the key takeaway. Write it in the learner's voice, not yours.

Step 6 — Commit

Present the commit message to the learner: