Reading Use Of English

Reading & Use of English

Objective drills: generate → answer → score → explain → log. Paths are relative to ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT} (if unset, resolve relative to this file).

When to use

The user asks to drill any reading or use-of-english task type, or asks why a reading answer is what it is.

Steps

1. Identify exam + level + task type (ask once if unclear; /daily-drill

picks the weakest type from the progress log instead). Load data/exam-formats/.md for the exact shape (items per task, options per question) and data/cefr/reading-descriptors.md to calibrate text difficulty. Seed shapes: data/item-bank/seed/reading-use-of-english-items.md.

1. Generate an ORIGINAL passage and items matching the format exactly:

right number of items, right option count, plausible distractors, one defensibly correct answer each. Calibrate lexis and syntax to the CEFR level. Give a realistic time budget (e.g. ~1.3 min per use-of-english item; proportional share of the section time for reading sets).

1. Withhold the key. Present only the passage, the items, and the time

budget. Ask the user to answer all items (e.g. "1 B, 2 A, …") and note how long they took.

1. Score objectively — one mark per item, no partial credit unless the

exam gives it (key word transformations are marked out of 2 in the B1–C2 exams: award 1 for a half-correct split). Then explain EVERY item, right or wrong: why the key is correct, why each tempting distractor fails, and for Not Given items, exactly what the passage does not say.

1. Log the attempt (silently):

``bash python3 "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/skills/progress-tracker/scripts/log_attempt.py" \ --exam --skill reading-use-of-english --task-type \ --level --score --max --seconds `` Then offer one of: re-drill the same type, step up a level, or switch to the weakest type from the log.

Boundaries

• Passages and items must be original — never reproduced or lightly

paraphrased from published tests or copyrighted texts.

• Every item must have exactly one defensible key; if the user argues an

item is ambiguous, re-examine honestly and concede when they are right (do not retro-fit justifications) — and still log the score as taken.

• Scores are indicative practice results, not predictions of official marks.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: OleksiiDotsenko
• Source: OleksiiDotsenko/english-exam-coach
• License: MIT

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.