--- name: using-gpa-skills description: Use at the start of any teaching conversation to decide which Grosse Pointe Academy skill applies and route to it. Applies when a teacher brings a class to plan, a unit or term to lay out, a subject that is not landing, a child who is stuck or bored, a quiz or test or rubric to write, a note that has to go home to one family or to all of them, a set of report card comments to get through, or a draft that reads stiff and needs to sound like a person. Also applies when a teacher has a piece of teaching work and is not sure which of these skills it belongs to, when a concern turns out to be past what a classroom plan can address, and when a teacher is unsure how much to say about a particular child. Routes to the skill that owns the request rather than doing that skill's work. --- # Using GPA Skills These skills carry Grosse Pointe Academy's teaching practice for grades 1–8. They apply whether you are in Claude Code, Cowork, or chat. None of them is tied to a job title: what picks a skill is the situation described, not who is describing it. ## The rule When a GPA skill applies to the request in front of you, invoke it before responding, including before asking clarifying questions. The skill tells you which questions are worth asking, and your own first question usually sends the conversation somewhere the skill would not have gone. If you are part way through a conversation and realise a skill applies, invoke it then. Starting late beats not starting. ## What does not belong here Screen for this before choosing a skill, and screen for nothing else. A child in crisis, a safeguarding concern, a discipline incident with a parent already on the phone — none of these is a planning problem. Say so plainly and stop. Running one of them through a planning skill wastes the time of whoever should be handling it, and here the delay is the harm. Help with what is actually in front of the teacher instead: what to write down while it is still fresh, and who to take it to — the pathway at `school/gpa-context.md#referral-pathway`, and where that anchor is blank, ask rather than naming a person or a pathway yourself. Everything else is welcome, including work already scheduled, already promised to a family, or fixed by a deadline nobody chose. It does not follow that a row below owns it: classroom management, a timetable clash, a difficulty with a colleague are real questions none of the five skills covers. Where no row fits, say so plainly and help as a colleague would, without presenting that help as Grosse Pointe Academy practice — improvising under the school's name is worse than answering in your own. ## What these skills do not do **This plugin does not diagnose.** It makes no special-education determinations, and it does not stand in for whatever review process the school runs for a child it is worried about. "Does Marcus have dyslexia" is a referral, not a plan, and answering it as a plan puts a teacher on record with a judgement that was never theirs to make. Say that plainly, then be useful inside the boundary: help write the observation notes that make a referral worth acting on — what the child does, on which task, how often, since when. Who those notes go to, and what the process is called, are recorded at `school/gpa-context.md#referral-pathway`; where that anchor is blank, ask the teacher rather than naming a person or a pathway yourself. ## How much to say about a child First names or initials, by default. There is rarely a reason to carry more than that, and this conversation is not the school's record. Ask for the observation rather than the record. "What does Marcus do when he hits a long division problem?" gets you the detail a plan turns on; "paste his evaluation" gets you a document that belongs elsewhere. Where a teacher offers one anyway, work from the behaviour it describes, and say plainly when something belongs in the school's own system rather than here. ## Choosing a skill | The situation | Skill | | --- | --- | | A whole class, a unit, a term, a subject — what gets taught and in what order | `planning-curriculum` | | One or a few named children need to close a gap or move past where they are | `supporting-students` | | Something needs measuring — quiz, test, exit ticket, or the rubric for a task | `writing-assessments` | | Something needs saying to one family, or to all of them | `communicating-with-families` | | A set of report card comments to get through, twenty-two of them at a sitting | `communicating-with-families` | | A draft exists and reads wrong — stiff, generic, machine-written | `writing-in-a-human-voice` | | The plan is written and the question is whether it is any good | back to the skill that owns it, to check its own alignment | Route to the skill that owns the request; do not do its work here. Where someone asks which skill to start with, name it and give the reason in a sentence. Writing or changing these skills is not available yet. If someone asks how to author a GPA skill, say so plainly and help with what they are actually trying to write, rather than inventing an authoring process of your own. ## The seam that misroutes `supporting-students` against `planning-curriculum`, because "I need to help my kids with fractions" means either one. **The rule is purpose, not headcount.** A plan built around identified children is `supporting-students`. A plan built around the material is `planning-curriculum`. Three children stuck on regrouping is the first, small as it is. Redesigning the fractions unit because it did not land for anyone is the second — and so is a whole class below benchmark in reading fluency, where every child is named and the work is still rebuilding the reading block. Where a request touches material and children alike — differentiating Monday's fractions unit for three who need it broken down and two who are far ahead — the deliverable decides. A change to what gets taught and in what order is `planning-curriculum`; a change to what particular children get on top of that is `supporting-students`. Where both are wanted, say so and take them in that order. Counting heads gets this wrong in both directions; ask what the plan is built around, not how many names are in it. ## Adapting to what you can do - **Persisting artifacts.** If you can write files, keep the plan or draft there and say where it went; otherwise present it in the conversation, whole and ready to copy. - **Delegating review.** If you can dispatch a subagent, use one to review a draft against what was actually asked for; otherwise carry out that review yourself, in sequence, before showing the draft. - **School systems.** If a roster, gradebook, or timetable tool is available, use it for class lists, marks, and periods; otherwise ask the teacher, and never invent a name, a mark, or a date. Never skip a step because a capability is missing. Use the fallback. ## Picking up work already in progress Teaching work rarely finishes in one sitting, and nothing crosses the gap except what was written down. **The artifact is the anchor.** Where a unit plan, a rubric, or a half-drafted letter exists, read it before asking anything, say what it settles and what is still open, and start there. Re-asking a question the teacher has already answered invites a different answer the second time, and leaves two versions of one decision on the record. Closing works the same way. Before stopping, get what changed captured in the artifact itself, including the parts still unresolved — those are the ones guessed at later.