# Science Of Reading Analyzer > > - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-jjuice22-classroom-ready-ai-skills-science-of-reading-analyzer` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [JJuice22](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jjuice22) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [JJuice22](https://github.com/JJuice22) - **Source:** https://github.com/JJuice22/classroom-ready-ai-skills/tree/main/skills/science-of-reading-analyzer ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-jjuice22-classroom-ready-ai-skills-science-of-reading-analyzer ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Science of Reading Analyzer ## Purpose Apply the Science of Reading evidence base to audit, improve, or design reading instruction and materials. This skill translates research into concrete, actionable classroom recommendations — and calls out practices that the evidence does not support, clearly and specifically. **The Science of Reading is not a program. It is a body of converging evidence from cognitive science, linguistics, and education research about how children learn to read.** This skill draws from that evidence base, not from any single commercial program. --- ## Theoretical Framework Two models anchor every analysis: ### Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990) **Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Language Comprehension** Both components are necessary; weakness in either limits reading ability. When analyzing any lesson, ask: Is this targeting decoding, language comprehension, or both? Is the lesson addressing the right component for this student's profile? ### Scarborough's Reading Rope (2001) Two braided strands: **Word Recognition** (lower strand — becomes automatic) - Phonological Awareness - Decoding - Sight Recognition **Language Comprehension** (upper strand — becomes strategic) - Background Knowledge - Vocabulary - Language Structures - Verbal Reasoning - Literacy Knowledge Both strands must be developed. Instruction that focuses only on one strand produces readers with identifiable, predictable profiles of difficulty. --- ## What You Need From the User - **The artifact to analyze** (required): Lesson plan, curriculum excerpt, instructional strategy description, text, assessment, or program name - **Grade level and student population** - **Context**: Is this a core reading program (Tier 1), intervention (Tier 2/3), or independent practice material? - **Analysis focus** (if specified): Does the user want a general audit, or are they specifically asking about one component? --- ## Analysis Framework Run through all applicable categories below. Not every category will be relevant to every artifact — use judgment about which sections to include. ### 1. Phonological and Phonemic Awareness **Questions to assess:** - Does the lesson include explicit phonological awareness work? - Is PA instruction connected to print (phonemic awareness with letters)? - Are tasks appropriate for the developmental level? (rhyme/alliteration → onset-rime → phoneme isolation → blending → segmenting → manipulation) - Is PA instruction time-limited and purposeful (not used as a stand-alone activity beyond when students have mastered phoneme manipulation)? **Evidence verdict options:** - ✅ Aligned: Explicit, systematic PA embedded appropriately - ⚠️ Partial: PA present but not connected to print, or at wrong level - ❌ Not present: Missing for a grade level where it should be core - 🔁 Unnecessary: PA instruction for students who have already mastered it ### 2. Phonics and Decoding **Questions to assess:** - Is phonics instruction explicit and systematic? - Does the scope and sequence follow a logical progression? (simple → complex: CVC → blends/digraphs → vowel patterns → multisyllabic) - Are students decoding with phonics patterns, or guessing from context/picture? - Is the text decodable relative to what students have been taught? - Are sight words (high-frequency irregular words) explicitly taught? - Is there opportunity for word study, pattern recognition, and transfer to text? **Red flags that indicate non-SOR alignment:** - Three-cueing system (MSV): asking students to guess from meaning, structure, or visual cues rather than decoding the word - "Skip it and come back" as a decoding strategy - Leveled readers before sufficient phonics knowledge is established - No phonics sequence or "word families" taught without underlying phonics logic **Scope and sequence benchmark** (general — programs vary): | Grade | Expected phonics scope | |---|---| | K | Letter sounds, CVC, basic sight words | | 1 | Blends, digraphs, CVCe, more vowel patterns | | 2 | Vowel teams, r-controlled, multisyllabic basics | | 3 | Multisyllabic, morphology begins | | 4–5 | Morphology, Latin/Greek roots, complex vowel patterns | ### 3. Fluency **Questions to assess:** - Is fluency practice included? (oral reading; timed/untimed) - Is fluency practice purposeful — connected to comprehension — or just accuracy-focused? - Is repeated reading used as a fluency-building strategy? - Does the text used for fluency practice meet the decodability/readability threshold for this student? - Is there explicit modeling of fluent reading with attention to prosody? **Research note**: Fluency instruction is frequently under-emphasized in both core programs and interventions. Cold reads alone do not build fluency — supported repeated reading with feedback does (Samuels, 1979; NRP, 2000). ### 4. Vocabulary **Questions to assess:** - Are Tier 2 words (academic vocabulary useful across contexts) explicitly pre-taught? (Beck, McKeown & Kucan, 2013 tier framework) - Are words taught to depth (definition + examples + non-examples + usage)? - Is morphology used as a vocabulary tool for Tier 3 domain-specific words? - Does the lesson return to vocabulary words in multiple contexts? - Is vocabulary connected to the text's content, not taught in isolation? **Research note**: Incidental exposure to vocabulary through reading does not close vocabulary gaps for students who are already behind. Explicit, robust vocabulary instruction is required (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986). ### 5. Reading Comprehension **Questions to assess:** - Is there explicit instruction in comprehension strategies (not just practice)? (Summarizing, questioning, visualizing, monitoring, connecting — Pressley, 2006) - Are students taught to use text structure as a comprehension tool? - Is background knowledge activated before reading and built during reading? - Are questions at multiple cognitive levels (literal, inferential, evaluative)? - Is there discussion that requires students to cite textual evidence? **Critical distinction**: Comprehension strategy instruction is not the same as comprehension assessment. Having students answer questions does not teach comprehension. Explicit strategy instruction does. ### 6. Writing Connection **Questions to assess:** - Does the lesson include any writing-to-read or read-to-write component? - Is spelling instruction (encoding) connected to decoding instruction? (Moats, 2005 — spelling and reading share phonological and orthographic knowledge) ### 7. Text Quality and Appropriateness For any text included in the lesson: - Is the text decodable relative to what students have been taught? - Is the text at an appropriate instructional level for the lesson's purpose? - Does the text offer rich vocabulary and syntax worth studying? - Does the text connect to students' lives and represent diverse experiences? **Leveled readers vs. decodable texts**: Leveled readers are appropriate for independent reading and language comprehension work. For phonics practice, decodable texts aligned to the taught scope and sequence are required. Conflating these purposes is a common source of instruction misalignment. --- ## Output Format ### Section 1: Quick Audit Summary ``` SCIENCE OF READING ALIGNMENT AUDIT Artifact: [lesson/text/program name] Grade Level: [X] | Context: [Core / Intervention / Independent practice] Analyzed by: edu-skills / science-of-reading-analyzer COMPONENT STATUS NOTES Phonol. Awareness [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] Phonics/Decoding [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] Fluency [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] Vocabulary [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] Comprehension [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] Writing/Encoding [✅/⚠️/❌/—] [brief note] OVERALL ALIGNMENT: [Strong / Partial / Misaligned] ``` ### Section 2: Strengths What is working and why. Evidence-specific. ### Section 3: Concerns What conflicts with the SOR evidence base. Named clearly, without euphemism. Include the specific research concern, not just the observation. ### Section 4: Recommendations Concrete, prioritized changes. Ordered by impact. For each recommendation: - What to add, change, or remove - Why (brief evidence rationale) - A practical implementation example ### Section 5: Resources Point to relevant references for deeper learning. Draw from `references/sor-research-base.md` for citable sources. --- ## Balanced Literacy vs. Structured Literacy — A Note If the user asks about this debate, respond factually: The term "balanced literacy" describes a broad instructional approach that blends whole-language and phonics elements. Research syntheses including the National Reading Panel (2000) and subsequent meta-analyses have found that systematic, explicit phonics instruction produces significantly stronger outcomes for word reading than approaches that do not include it — particularly for students at risk for reading difficulties (Ehri et al., 2001). The term "structured literacy" (International Dyslexia Association) describes instruction that is explicit, systematic, sequential, cumulative, multisensory, and diagnostic — the approach supported by the convergent SOR evidence base. These are not equivalent approaches. The evidence does not treat them as equally effective for students with reading difficulties. --- ## Reference Files - `references/sor-research-base.md` — Citable SOR research: key studies, meta-analyses, and foundational researchers with summaries - `references/red-flag-practices.md` — Non-SOR-aligned practices with research citations explaining why each is problematic Read these when the user needs citations for professional advocacy, parent communication, or curriculum adoption decisions. ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [JJuice22](https://github.com/JJuice22) - **Source:** [JJuice22/classroom-ready-ai-skills](https://github.com/JJuice22/classroom-ready-ai-skills) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-jjuice22-classroom-ready-ai-skills-science-of-reading-analyzer - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/jjuice22 - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.