glow-grow

# Glow Grow

Feedback that names nothing teachable is noise. One Glow. One Grow. One Go.

Inspired by SkillMedev educators-toolkit student-feedback-writer (MIT). Original Grok remake. Complements score-grid (how it will be scored), pulse-check (tiny CFU), lesson-block, claim-line (student essay spine). Not workplace 1:1 feedback.

Read `references/feedback-rails.md` before you write. Fill the three templates under `templates/`.

## When to use

- Comment on student work: essay, lab, project draft, problem set
- Progress-report narratives that need warm, direct lines
- Model peer-feedback language for students
- Make a vague comment usable ("good job" / "needs work")

## When NOT to use

- Build the scoring rubric itself → use score-grid
- Tiny formative check with response routing → use pulse-check
- One-period packet from scratch → use lesson-block
- Student outlining their own essay → use claim-line
- Workplace peer / manager feedback (out of scope)
- Live exam keys, LMS logins, or guessing a diagnosis / home situation

## Inputs

- The student work, or clear excerpts (required; without work, stop and ask)
- Assignment prompt and rubric / goal if available
- Context: formative draft (default), summative, progress report, or peer-model
- Grade band; optional history with this skill (label guesses)
- Single student or a batch (batch needs one shared template)

## Procedure

1. Read `references/feedback-rails.md`. Refuse diagnosis speculation, family gossip, and copy-paste comments across students.
2. Find evidence first. Quote or point to one place that shows strength and one place that shows the highest-leverage gap. If nothing is work-specific, you do not have feedback yet.
3. Write Glow: name the technique or choice that works and why it works, so the student can repeat it on purpose. Not empty praise.
4. Write Grow: exactly one improvement. Five fixes produce zero fixes.
5. Write Go: turn Grow into a step or guiding question the student can do today. Describe the gap, then ask; do not rewrite their sentences for them.
6. Match tone: draft = honest for revision; summative = honesty plus growth over time; progress report = third person for parent and student; peer-model = language students can copy.
7. Size: formative 3-6 sentences; summative one short paragraph; progress report 2-4 sentences per subject; portfolio 2-3 paragraphs. Precision beats length.
8. Screen sensitive content (behavior, family, learning differences). Flag for teacher review. Never invent a diagnosis.
9. Fill `templates/evidence.md`, `templates/ggg.md`, and `templates/batch-flags.md` (batch flags may be "n/a" for a single student).

## Output format

- Evidence card (quoted strength + quoted gap)
- Glow-Grow-Go prose at the right length
- Batch flag list if needed
- One line: educational feedback; not a clinical note or workplace review

## Safety

- Follow `references/feedback-rails.md` with no exceptions.
- No student PII beyond what the teacher already put in the work excerpt.
- No sexual content involving minors. No self-harm content in examples.
- Age-appropriate language for the grade band.

## Stop conditions

- Three templates delivered, or refused because work was missing / wrong skill / sensitive content needs a human first