Counts show all available guides. Filters combine to narrow your results.
Simplify a complex taskGuide
Check a short answer against its actual rubric
Use the supplied scoring checklist to find specific problems and make a small, source-based revision.
Illustrative resourceNot tool-testedAdults who want a practical, low-stakes way to check a short answer against its actual rubric
What you’re working towards
Evaluate a learner draft against supplied criteria and make a minimal, evidence-grounded revision. The worked result is a written example for practice; the AI steps have not been tested.
Your choice also saves this guide’s current worked-example checkmarks. Only this browser; no account or sync. View saved guides
Saving needs JavaScript. Reading and downloading this guide does not save it.
Make a start
One step at a time.
3 steps
Start with the synthetic worked example or other non-sensitive inputs. Run one prompt at a time in your chosen AI tool. Replace any bracketed placeholders with the requested material, check each reply, and supply the source or earlier outputs that step needs. Paste them again if the tool lacks that context.
Start with the synthetic example, then adapt each prompt to your task.
01
Open a chat and paste the example
Open https://chatgpt.com and choose New chat. Copy every line under Input in this guide into the message box. Then add the prompt below (the instructions telling the assistant what to do) and send both together. Expect a written response shaped like the example under Output. The wording may differ. If the assistant asks for information already in the input, point to that line; if a necessary fact is missing, keep it unknown rather than guessing.
Your starting prompt
Review the learner draft against the complete source and exact four-point rubric above. Give one score and short reason per criterion, total them, then make the smallest source-grounded revision that answers the question in no more than 35 words. Do not invent an architect or treat this as an official grade.
02
Check the specific result
Verify the original draft earns only the length point, for 1/4. The revision must say 1962 and connecting the east and west walking paths, omit Mara Vale, and stay within 35 words. Compare it with the Input yourself. If the response fails a check, paste the correction prompt below into the same chat. Recheck the corrected version before saving it.
Your starting prompt
Re-score using only the four supplied criteria and source. Correct the opening year and purpose, remove the unsupported architect, and keep the revised answer focused on the question. Recheck the word limit and total score.
03
Try it with your own example
Open a new chat. Copy the prompt below, then replace [PASTE YOUR INPUT HERE] with your own non-sensitive facts and rules. Include the kinds of details listed under Requirements. Send the whole message. Expect the same kind of result as this guide, using your values. Compare every name, number and rule with your input. If something differs, point to the exact mismatch and ask for a corrected complete answer. Save only a version you have checked.
Your starting prompt
Review my draft against only the supplied source, question and scoring rules below. Give a score and short reason for each criterion, show the total, then make the smallest source-grounded revision within my word limit. Keep missing source facts unknown. This is self-review, not an official grade.
Use only the new input below. If a fact needed to finish is missing, ask me for it before choosing an answer.
MY INPUT
[PASTE YOUR INPUT HERE]
Optional: improve the result
Review before rewriting
Let the learner act on the feedback rather than always supplying a polished replacement. This extension uses the worked example. Return to that example chat, or paste its input and your checked example answer into a new chat first. Do not apply its sample values unchanged to your own input.
Advanced prompt
For my next draft, use the same source and scoring checklist but give only criterion-level feedback and one prioritized revision suggestion. Wait for me to revise before providing any model answer.
Show, then try
See the shape of the result.
This input is synthetic. The output is a written illustration of the intended result, not a verified AI-tool run.
01 / The starting point
Synthetic input
Made-up example for practice.
Made-up learning exercise. Source: “In the fictional town of Fernbridge, a footbridge opened in 1962 to connect the east and west walking paths. Its wooden deck was replaced in 1995. No architect is named in this source.” Question: when did the bridge open and why was it built? Rubric, meaning the scoring checklist: 1 point for the correct opening year; 1 for the correct purpose; 1 for using only supported facts; 1 for an answer of no more than 35 words. Learner draft: “Fernbridge’s bridge opened in 1963 to carry cars and was designed by Mara Vale.” Give criterion-by-criterion feedback and a minimal revised answer. Do not invent an architect or unrelated history.
Copies text only. For image or file tasks, use the source files named in the steps too.
Written example for practice; not a recorded AI response.
Self-review against the four-point checklist
Opening year: 0/1. The draft says 1963; the source says 1962.
Purpose: 0/1. The draft says carrying cars; the source says connecting the east and west walking paths.
Supported facts only: 0/1. Mara Vale is not supported; the source names no architect.
Length: 1/1. The draft is within 35 words.
Total under this supplied rubric: 1/4.
Minimal revised answer
“Fernbridge’s footbridge opened in 1962 to connect the east and west walking paths.”
The revision answers the actual question without adding the unrelated deck-replacement date. It meets all four stated criteria; this is an illustrative review, not an official grade.
These checks use the worked example and its particular facts. With your own material, check your actual names, numbers, sources and rules; do not reuse the sample’s values as the answer.
Unsaved checks stay in this tab and reset when you reload. If you choose Save guide, its current example checkmarks are kept in this browser when storage is available.
!
A few things to watch for.
An assistant’s preferred style is not an extra scoring criterion. Use the actual rubric.
A sample score is not an official assessment and may differ from a teacher’s judgment if criteria are incomplete.