⚠️বাংলা (Bengali) content is governed and review-required. English fallback is shown where translations are pending reviewer approval.
Teacher Prompt Library
Reviewed, classroom-ready AI prompt templates
Every template uses the SATHI structure with marked variables, a filled example, its review requirements and its privacy note. Teacher review before classroom use is always required.
A full test built row-by-row from an outcome/level/marks blueprint.
Template
{{BOARD}} Class {{CLASS}} {{SUBJECT}}, chapter(s) {{CHAPTERS}}. Build to this blueprint: {{BLUEPRINT_ROWS}} (each row: outcome — item count — type — difficulty — marks). Plus one misconception item targeting {{KNOWN_MISCONCEPTION}}. Answer key with one-line reasoning per item, items labelled by outcome and cognitive level. Syllabus notation only; distractors must be plausible errors, never jokes; I verify every key. Flag your least-confident item.
See the filled example
CBSE Class 8 Maths, Linear Equations in One Variable. Build to this blueprint: solve one-side equations — 3 — MCQ — easy — 1 mark each; solve both-sides — 3 — short answer — medium — 2; form equation from words — 1 — case-based (2 questions) — hard — 3. Plus one misconception item targeting sign errors. Answer key with reasoning, items labelled. I verify every key. Flag your least-confident item.
Illustrative: a paper whose marks match the blueprint, an assertion-free format, and one flagged item the teacher checks first.
Review: Solve every item yourself before trusting the key; check each item maps to a taught outcome; run the six-defect audit (ambiguity, keys, difficulty honesty, context bias, distractors, curriculum match).
Privacy: Never include student names, identifiable marks, health, family or community details. Describe situations and needs, never children.
Known failure modes: Ignores the blueprint totals — recount marks before use · Key errors — solve every item
Assessment & feedbackPractitioner ~10 minFree
Feedback drafts from anonymised patterns
Encouraging, specific feedback language from performance patterns — never pasted student work.
Template
Task: {{TASK}}, rubric criteria: {{CRITERIA_LIST}}. For each of these anonymised performance patterns, draft feedback (two strengths, one next step, encouraging tone, ≤60 words each): {{PATTERN_LIST}}. Address the work, not the person; next steps must be actionable this week. I will personalise offline.
See the filled example
Task: persuasive essay, criteria: argument, evidence, structure. Patterns: (a) argument clear, evidence thin, sources uncited; (b) rich evidence, structure rambles; (c) strong throughout, conclusion abrupt. Draft two strengths + one next step each, ≤60 words, encouraging. I personalise offline.
Review: Feedback drafts are language, not judgement — the level/mark is read from the work by you.
Privacy: Describe performance patterns only. Never paste identifiable student work into a public tool. Never include student names, identifiable marks, health, family or community details. Describe situations and needs, never children.
Known failure modes: Generic next steps ('work harder') — actionable-this-week is the bar
Assessment & feedbackPractitioner ~10 minFree
MCQs with error-based distractors
MCQs where every wrong option encodes a real, named student error.
Template
Class {{CLASS}} {{SUBJECT}}, outcome: {{OUTCOME}}. {{ITEM_COUNT}} MCQs where each wrong option encodes a REAL error a student makes — after each item, one line naming the error each distractor represents. No joke options, no 'all of the above'. Answer key; I verify. Difficulty: {{DIFFICULTY_MIX}}.
See the filled example
Class 6 Maths, outcome: compare fractions with different denominators. 6 MCQs where each wrong option encodes a real error, with the error named per distractor. No joke options. Answer key; I verify. Difficulty: 3 easy, 2 medium, 1 hard.
Review: Solve every item yourself before trusting the key; check each item maps to a taught outcome; run the six-defect audit (ambiguity, keys, difficulty honesty, context bias, distractors, curriculum match).
Privacy: Never include student names, identifiable marks, health, family or community details. Describe situations and needs, never children.
Known failure modes: Distractors drift into implausible options — the named-error line exposes this
Assessment & feedbackPractitioner ~10 minFree
Project rubric with observable descriptors
A rubric two markers would apply identically, plus a student-language version.
Template
Class {{CLASS}} project: {{PROJECT_DESCRIPTION}}. A rubric with {{CRITERIA_COUNT}} criteria ({{CRITERIA_LIST}}), {{LEVEL_COUNT}} levels each, and OBSERVABLE descriptors per cell — something a reader could point to in the work, no adjectives without evidence. Plus a student-language version of the same rubric. Flag any descriptor two markers could still read differently.
See the filled example
Class 8 project: science-fair investigation on water conservation. A rubric with 4 criteria (accuracy, investigation, communication, teamwork), 4 levels each, and observable descriptors per cell. Plus a student-language version. Flag any descriptor two markers could read differently.