Learn

Review an assignment draft without writing the answer

Diagnose a learner's draft against instructions and rubric while preserving authorship

8 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
1

Add your context

Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.

2

Your prompt

Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt

Review this assignment draft as a coach, not a substitute author.

Exact assignment, rubric, level, allowed help, sources, and submission rules:
[assignment]

Learner's exact draft, citations, notes, uncertainties, and unfinished sections:
[draft]

Feedback depth, deadline, priorities, question policy, and authorship limits:
[feedback]

First restate the task and identify any conflict or missing rubric information. Evaluate each applicable criterion using exact locations or short excerpts from the draft. Separate what is already demonstrated, what is partially supported, what is missing, and what cannot be judged. Do not invent sources, claims, evidence, personal experience, sentences for submission, or finished answers. Do not provide a replacement draft. For each high-priority issue, explain why it matters, ask one question that helps the learner make the decision, and suggest a revision action expressed as an operation rather than submission-ready prose. Distinguish content, reasoning, evidence, structure, citation, and surface-language issues. End with a prioritized self-revision checklist and a final verification pass tied to the rubric.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.

From input to outcome

A worked example

See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result

Actual input

Assignment and rubric
Grade 10 history paragraph, 250-300 words: assess whether factory reform between 1833 and 1847 substantially improved child workers' lives. Rubric: defensible judgment, two supplied primary-source details, contextual reasoning, one limitation, clear paragraph structure. Only sources A-C may be used. AI may give feedback but may not compose submission text.
Learner draft
Factory reform improved children's lives. The 1833 Act made children work fewer hours. Source A says inspectors visited factories. This was good because factories had to follow rules. The 1847 Act reduced hours again, so life was much better. However, some owners may not listen. Therefore the reforms worked. [238 words in full draft; citations not yet formatted.]
Feedback preferences
Feedback first, no rewritten sentences or proposed thesis. Ask questions before suggestions. Submission tomorrow; prioritize reasoning and source use, then citations. Keep feedback under 450 words.

Example output

Task check: the paragraph must assess degree, use two specific details from sources A-C, add context, and address a limitation. The excerpt shows a conclusion but does not yet demonstrate all of those requirements. I cannot judge the omitted portions of the 238-word draft.

Highest priority — defensible judgment and reasoning Evidence: “life was much better” states degree but the excerpt does not define what improvement means or weigh enforcement against reduced hours. Question: which measure of children's lives can your supplied sources actually support—hours, safety, health, income, or enforcement? Revision operation: choose the supported measure, then qualify the degree of improvement after weighing the strongest limitation. Do not simply intensify “much better.”

Source use Evidence: Source A is named, but “inspectors visited factories” is not a precise detail and its connection to actual compliance is assumed. Only one source is visible. Question: what exact detail in A shows inspectors' power or limits, and which detail in B or C tests whether reduced legal hours changed practice? Revision operation: add two accurate details in your own words, identify their source, and explain how each changes the judgment.

Limitation Evidence: “some owners may not listen” is plausible but currently unsupported and vague. Question: does one allowed source provide enforcement, evasion, coverage, or implementation evidence? Revision operation: replace speculation with the permitted source evidence, or label the limitation more narrowly if the sources cannot establish prevalence.

Self-revision order: verify every factual detail against A-C; decide the supported measure and qualified judgment; add the second source detail; explain rather than repeat each detail; test the limitation against the judgment; format citations; finally confirm 250-300 words and every rubric item. I have not supplied submission-ready wording or a thesis.

Why this works

  1. 1

    Rubric-linked evidence makes feedback inspectable without taking over the learner's decisions.

  2. 2

    Operation-level advice teaches revision while avoiding submission-ready ghostwriting.

Check the result

  • Is every judgment tied to the assignment, rubric, and a precise part of the draft?

  • Does the feedback avoid replacement prose, invented evidence, and finished answers?

  • Can the learner execute the revision checklist while remaining the author?

More ways to explore

Where this recipe fits

Text promptsFor learners & educatorsChatGPT prompts

Keep the work moving

Learn 9 min setup

Design a rubric from standards

Translate standards into observable, distinct, and consistently scorable criteria

A weighted analytic rubric with evidence rules, calibration cases, and a quality audit
Open recipe