Idéal pour
- Partir d'un prompt structuré et réutilisable plutôt que d'une conversation vierge.
- Adapter le prompt à vos propres données tout en conservant l'intention d'origine.
- Les workflows liés à Education & Academic.
Crée une grille d’évaluation pondérée avec des descriptions de performance observables et fondées sur des critères pour un devoir donné.
Create a grading rubric for the following assignment: {{Assignment: e.g. A SwiftUI View Model Refactoring Exercise}}
Audience: {{Audience:[audiences]}}
Criteria: {{Criteria: e.g. Code Quality and Architecture and Testing and Documentation}}
Scale: {{Grading Scale: *Three Levels - Excellent Meets Developing, Four Levels Including Not Met, Point Scale 0 to 100 With Ranges per Level}}
Output the rubric as a table. Rows are the criteria and columns are the performance levels.
Each cell contains two sentences that describe concretely and observably how this level of performance looks in the submitted artifact. Do not use vague phrases such as good code quality cleanly implemented or appropriate. Use verifiable characteristics instead.
Weight the criteria and state the weighting in percent.
After the table add briefly:
- Three cases where the classification is typically contentious and how I decide them.
- A five sentence short version of the rubric to give students before they start their submission.
e.g. A SwiftUI View Model Refactoring Exercise
[audiences]
e.g. Code Quality and Architecture and Testing and Documentation
Three Levels - Excellent Meets Developing, Four Levels Including Not Met, Point Scale 0 to 100 With Ranges per Level
Create a grading rubric for the following assignment: e.g. A SwiftUI View Model Refactoring Exercise Audience: [audiences] Criteria: e.g. Code Quality and Architecture and Testing and Documentation Scale: Three Levels - Excellent Meets Developing Output the rubric as a table. Rows are the criteria and columns are the performance levels. Each cell contains two sentences that describe concretely and observably how this level of performance looks in the submitted artifact. Do not use vague phrases such as good code quality cleanly implemented or appropriate. Use verifiable characteristics instead. Weight the criteria and state the weighting in percent. After the table add briefly: - Three cases where the classification is typically contentious and how I decide them. - A five sentence short version of the rubric to give students before they start their submission.
Les variables sont entourées de {{ et }} et suivent ce modèle :
Une sélection peut référencer une liste de variables prédéfinie à l'aide de crochets. Elles apparaissent en [orange] et fournissent des valeurs courantes comme des couleurs, des tons ou des langues.
Vous pouvez aussi fournir une liste de choix en ligne, séparés par des virgules.
Astuce : vous n'avez pas besoin de l'application PUCO pour utiliser ces prompts ! Copiez simplement le modèle et remplacez chaque section {{…}} par votre propre texte directement dans ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini ou tout autre assistant IA.