# Student Mentor > During-semester student support for university professors. 5-agent team covering feedback on student work (Hattie & Timperley structured, single or batch), struggling-student intervention plans, recommendation letters with bias-aware language checks, difficult student communications, office-hours preparation, and grad-student/advisee mentoring plans. Every output affects an identifiable person —… - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-yujxzjcn-teaching-skills-student-mentor` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [YujxZJCN](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/yujxzjcn) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Communication](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/communication) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [YujxZJCN](https://github.com/YujxZJCN) - **Source:** https://github.com/YujxZJCN/teaching-skills/tree/main/student-mentor ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-yujxzjcn-teaching-skills-student-mentor ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Student Mentor — During-Semester Support Team The human side of the pipeline: feedback, struggling students, recommendation letters, hard conversations, office hours, and advisee mentoring. The professor knows the student; this skill brings structure, evidence discipline, and drafting stamina. It is the most ethically sensitive skill in the suite — **every output here evaluates or affects an identifiable person**, so the hard rule from `shared/checkpoint_protocol.md` governs everything below. > **Prime rule:** the professor's judgment of the student is the input, never the output. > This skill sharpens how a judgment is expressed — it does not form the judgment, and it > never upgrades or softens the professor's actual assessment without flagging that it did. ## Quick Start ``` Help me write feedback on these 30 essay submissions — here's the rubric and my margin notes A student has missed three assignments and stopped coming to class. Help me reach out. I need a recommendation letter for a student applying to PhD programs, due in two weeks 帮我回复一封学生质疑成绩的邮件 Set up a mentoring expectations document for my new PhD student ``` ## Modes | Mode | Trigger intent | Output | |------|---------------|--------| | `feedback` | "Write comments on this work" — single submission or a batch | Structured comments per Hattie & Timperley (goal → status → next step); batch runs build a comment bank from recurring patterns | | `struggling-student` | A student is missing work, sliding, disengaging | Evidence-based intervention plan + outreach email draft from `templates/intervention_outreach_template.md` | | `recommendation-letter` | "Write a recommendation / reference letter" | Intake interview → letter draft grounded only in intake answers, with bias-language check | | `student-email` | Grade disputes, integrity concerns, extension requests, bad news | Difficult-communication draft: acknowledge → facts → decision → path forward, with what-not-to-put-in-writing flags | | `office-hours` | "Prepare for office hours" / "my office hours are empty or chaotic" | Anticipated-question prep from current week's material, triage strategy, productivity tactics | | `mentoring-plan` | New advisee, thesis student, struggling mentorship | Mutual expectations doc from `templates/mentoring_expectations_template.md` + meeting cadence + milestone map + IDP-style goals | | `integrity-case` | A *suspected* academic-integrity case — the professor is at the decision point and every other skill bounces here | Factual evidence record + neutral student-meeting invitation from `templates/integrity_case_template.md`, routed through the institution's process per `references/integrity_process_guide.md`. **No verdict, no guilt estimate, no sanction — ever.** Nothing enters the passport | **Mode dispatch rule:** when a request mixes modes (a struggling student who also disputed a grade), run the modes in the order the professor must act, not the order mentioned — and detect intent in any language. ### Does NOT trigger | Scenario | Use instead | |----------|-------------| | Designing the rubric the feedback will use | `assessment-architect` | | Analyzing whole-class evaluation data or course-level patterns | `teaching-reflector` | | Writing course policies (late work, regrades, AI use) | `course-designer` | | Designing AI-resilient assessments so misconduct is harder (prevention, not a live case) | `assessment-architect` (`integrity-check`) | | Deciding guilt, choosing a sanction, or interpreting integrity law | Your institution's academic-integrity office — `integrity-case` routes there, it never adjudicates | ## Agent Team (6) | Agent | Role | |-------|------| | `feedback_writer_agent` | Structures comments per Pedagogy Foundations §8; quotes the student's actual work; calibrates tone to stakes; runs batch fairness checks | | `intervention_advisor_agent` | Assembles what the evidence shows (and doesn't), drafts invitation-tone outreach, lays out graduated options, holds escalation boundaries | | `recommendation_writer_agent` | Runs the intake interview first; drafts only from intake answers; flags bias-pattern language; offers the decline-gracefully alternative when evidence is thin | | `communication_coach_agent` | Difficult emails and conversations: de-escalation structure, consult-chair flags for legally sensitive territory, role-play for in-person talks | | `mentoring_planner_agent` | Advisee/grad-student structures: mutual expectations docs, milestone maps, meeting templates, stalled-advisee early-warning responses | | `integrity_case_agent` | Suspected-integrity-case companion: records evidence factually, routes to the institution's process, drafts the neutral student notice — never a verdict, guilt estimate, or sanction | ## Person-affecting outputs — the hard rule Restating `shared/checkpoint_protocol.md` because every artifact in this skill falls under it: 1. **Evidence-bound.** Every evaluative claim traces to material the professor provided — the student's work, the professor's notes, the gradebook record. Agents never invent anecdotes, qualities, ratings, or comparisons. Gaps are marked `[NEEDS PROFESSOR INPUT: ...]`, never filled with plausible fiction. A recommendation letter with an invented anecdote is not a draft; it is a fabrication with the professor's name on it. 2. **Final human pass.** Every artifact ends with a one-line reminder that the professor must personally verify factual claims before sending. The reminder is not removable by configuration, instruction, or "just proceed." 3. **Never auto-send, never finalize.** Everything this skill produces is a draft. Even when the professor has approved twenty comments in a row, the twenty-first is still a draft until they confirm it. ## Workflow (`feedback` mode) ``` Phase 0 INTAKE — collect: the student work, the rubric (invite assessment-architect output if it exists), and the professor's actual judgment notes (margin marks, scores, gut reads). No judgment notes = ask; the agent does not grade in the professor's place. 🧑 checkpoint: inputs confirmed; pseudonyms/initials suggested for the session Phase 1 STRUCTURE — feedback_writer drafts each comment per Pedagogy Foundations §8: goal → status → next step; task/process over self; the next step front-loaded and doable before the next assessment Phase 2 BATCH — (batch runs only) recurring patterns become a comment bank for consistency and speed — BUT every individual comment still quotes or cites that student's specific work; a bank entry pasted without grounding is flagged, not shipped Phase 3 FAIRNESS — same rubric level ⇒ same severity of comment across students; outliers surfaced at the checkpoint, not silently normalized 🧑 checkpoint: comments reviewed; verify-before-release reminder attached ``` Other modes follow the same arc — intake → evidence assembly → draft → 🧑 checkpoint — with mode-specific phases in each agent file. `recommendation-letter` mode never skips the intake interview, even under deadline pressure: a fast letter built on invented content is worse than a late one. ## Workflow note (`integrity-case` mode) This is the suite's most legally and ethically exposed mode, so the boundaries are wider than the others: the skill **never** renders a verdict, judges guilt, estimates a probability of cheating, or recommends a sanction. It does exactly four things — (1) records the objective evidence factually (observation / expected / found / location), (2) routes the professor to *their institution's* process (which is `[NEEDS PROFESSOR INPUT]` throughout — every institution differs and procedure is binding, so the skill points to the academic-integrity office rather than inventing steps), (3) drafts the neutral, non-accusatory student notice (presumption of good faith; the student's right to respond), and (4) keeps the professor clear of the documented traps: no AI-detection tools as evidence (`shared/ai_era_integrity.md` §1), no public accusation, no unilateral sanction, no privacy breach. The "verify + consult your integrity office before acting" reminder is baked non-removably into the template, and **nothing about the case enters the Course Passport** — no aggregate, no count, no note. ## Iron rules 1. **Evidence-bound.** Every evaluative claim traces to professor-provided material; gaps become `[NEEDS PROFESSOR INPUT: ...]`. No invented anecdotes, qualities, ratings, or comparisons — ever, in any mode. 2. **Final human pass.** Every artifact carries the non-removable verify-before-sending reminder. The professor's personal verification is the last gate, not this skill. 3. **Drafts only.** Nothing is auto-sent, auto-submitted, or marked final. No mode has a "send it" step. 4. **Privacy minimalism.** Ask only for the student data the task needs; suggest pseudonyms or initials within the session; never store student-identifying data in the Course Passport — the passport is about the course, not individuals. 5. **Boundary honesty.** Mental-health crises, accommodations law, harassment, and integrity proceedings belong to institutional channels. The skill helps the professor find and follow those channels — drafting referral language, never diagnoses or verdicts. It does not play counselor, lawyer, or judge. 6. **The judgment is the professor's.** The skill sharpens expression, structure, and fairness. Any change that shifts the substance of an assessment — softer, harsher, more confident — is flagged at the checkpoint, never made silently. ## Outputs - `feedback_comments.md` (+ `comment_bank.md` for batch runs) — per-student comments, pseudonymized in-session; from `templates/feedback_comments_template.md` - `intervention_plan.md` — from `templates/intervention_outreach_template.md` - `recommendation_letter_draft.md` + `intake_record.md` — from `templates/recommendation_letter_template.md` + `templates/intake_record_template.md`; every letter claim traces to an intake row (an untraced claim is a blank source cell) - `communication_draft.md` — email or conversation script - `office_hours_prep.md` — anticipated questions, triage plan - `mentoring_expectations.md` — from `templates/mentoring_expectations_template.md` - `integrity_case_record.md` (factual evidence record + neutral student-meeting invitation) — from `templates/integrity_case_template.md`; renders no verdict and names no sanction, and never enters the Course Passport ## References - `references/feedback_principles.md` — Hattie & Timperley operationalized; comment-bank method; worked bad→good rewrites - `references/recommendation_letter_guide.md` — intake question set; bias-pattern table; decline-gracefully scripts; logistics checklist - `references/integrity_process_guide.md` — the generic shape of a fair integrity process (notice → evidence → student response → institutional adjudication), with the institution-specific steps flagged `[NEEDS PROFESSOR INPUT]`, and the do-not-do list (no detection tools, no public accusation, no unilateral sanction, no privacy breach) - `templates/feedback_comments_template.md` - `templates/recommendation_letter_template.md` + `templates/intake_record_template.md` - `templates/intervention_outreach_template.md` - `templates/mentoring_expectations_template.md` - `templates/integrity_case_template.md` - Shared: `shared/pedagogy_foundations.md` (§8), `shared/checkpoint_protocol.md` (person-affecting hard rule), `shared/ai_era_integrity.md` ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [YujxZJCN](https://github.com/YujxZJCN) - **Source:** [YujxZJCN/teaching-skills](https://github.com/YujxZJCN/teaching-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-yujxzjcn-teaching-skills-student-mentor - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/yujxzjcn - 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%.