Portability: Requires a Consensus MCP connection, Node.js with
docxpackage, and file reading capability for the syllabus. Works in Claude Code CLI natively. In Claude.ai with Consensus MCP + Code Execution + file upload, the workflow is supported.
For an instructor or student with a course syllabus, produce a professional supplementary reading list as .docx containing recent peer-reviewed papers per course section.
This skill uses a bundled JavaScript helper script for DOCX generation rather than inlining the 300+ lines of layout code:
The bundled script is at scripts/generate_reading_list.js. The skill orchestrates the pipeline + invokes the script with JSON input.
Locked verbatim per PR #657 audit.
[Not from Consensus — model knowledge] and excluded.Provide the syllabus — pick one:
- File path (PDF, DOCX, text) — I'll read it
- Pasted content — paste below
- Image of a printed syllabus — attach the image
Why I'm asking: Each format needs a different reader (PDF / DOCX parser / vision). Picking upfront prevents wasted attempts.
Forcing choice. Refuse to start without a syllabus.
Course audience — pick one:
- Undergraduate (intro level)
- Undergraduate (advanced / upper division)
- Graduate (Masters / early PhD)
- Graduate (doctoral / advanced)
- Professional / continuing education
- Mixed
Why I'm asking: Audience dictates summary jargon level and discussion-question complexity. Undergrad summaries define every term; grad summaries assume technical fluency. Discussion questions for undergrads test analysis; for grads test critique and extension.
See references/audience_calibration.md for the canon.
Year range for papers — pick one:
- Last 1 year (most recent only)
- Last 2 years (default — recent + a year of context)
- Last 5 years (broader, includes foundational recent work)
Why I'm asking: Reading lists go stale fast. 1-year filters keep things fresh; 5-year filters surface foundational recent work that's already standard. Drives the year_min parameter on every Consensus search.
Forcing choice with default (last 2 years).
Stop condition: 3 questions max before Phase 1. The post-Phase-2 group-and-confirm checkpoint is its own grill-me moment.
Per Q1 input format:
From extracted text:
Mark inferred learning outcomes as [inferred] in the DOCX.
Use scripts/topic_grouper.py to cluster related topics into 6-12 sections. Heuristic: closely-related topics merge; cross-cutting topics get their own section.
After grouping, present:
Proposed sections: [list with item counts]. Pick one:
- "Looks good — proceed with these sections"
- "Merge sections [X] and [Y]"
- "Split section [X] into two"
- "Add a section for [topic]"
- "Remove section [X]"
Why I'm asking: Grouping drives search allocation. Wrong grouping wastes the search budget on bad clusters. This is the last cheap moment to correct course before searches consume Consensus calls.
Refuse to start Phase 3 without explicit user choice.
Sequential, 1 q/sec. 1-2 queries per section.
Don't just search the topic — search the topic + applied domain:
| ❌ Generic | ✅ Applied-domain |
|---|---|
| "enzyme kinetics" | "enzyme kinetics food processing applications" |
| "machine learning" | "machine learning clinical decision support" |
| "thermodynamics" | "thermodynamics renewable energy systems" |
| "social network analysis" | "social network analysis public health interventions" |
Boosts paper relevance dramatically. See references/applied_domain_weaving.md for the canon.
For each section:
1. Construct query: "{topic-keywords} {applied-domain-angle}" + year_min from Q3
2. Submit to Consensus (sequential, 1 q/sec gap enforced by citation_tracker)
3. Receive results
4. (If thin) submit one fallback query without applied-domain angle
5. Select 1-3 papers per section (15-25 total across all sections)
Per paper:
| ✅ Good summary | ❌ Bad summary |
|---|---|
| "This review maps how different diets — Mediterranean, Nordic, vegetarian — reshape the types of fat molecules circulating in your blood, with implications for heart disease risk." | "This paper reviews lipidomic profiles across dietary interventions and their cardiometabolic implications." |
Per paper:
| ✅ Good question | ❌ Bad question |
|---|---|
| "If dietary fat quality can reshape your lipoprotein lipidome, what does this suggest about the biochemical basis for dietary guidelines recommending unsaturated over saturated fats?" | "What did the authors find?" (Just recall) |
Use scripts/discussion_question_validator.py to flag recall-only questions.
node ../scripts/generate_reading_list.js \
--input /tmp/syllabus_data.json \
--output /path/to/reading_list_<course>_<date>.docx
The script accepts JSON with this schema:
{
"courseTitle": "string",
"courseSubtitle": "string",
"generatedDate": "string",
"yearRange": "string",
"introText": "string",
"learningOutcomes": ["string", ...],
"sections": [
{
"heading": "string",
"papers": [
{
"title": "string",
"authors": "string",
"journal": "string",
"year": number,
"url": "string",
"summary": "string",
"question": "string"
}
]
}
],
"auditLog": {
"totalQueriesSent": number,
"totalPapersReceived": number,
"totalPapersCited": number,
"toolConstraints": "string",
"searchDetails": [
{
"section": "string",
"query": "string",
"papersReturned": number,
"papersSelected": number,
"status": "string"
}
],
"failures": []
}
}
The script handles:
docx package require with multi-location fallbackExternalHyperlink with full Consensus URLs (never truncated)LevelFormat.BULLET for lists (not unicode bullets)See references/bundled_script_pattern.md for why bundled vs inline.
python scripts/office/validate.py <docx>
| Script | Role |
|---|---|
scripts/citation_tracker.py |
Consensus three-count audit + 1s sequential discipline at ~/.syllabus_sessions/<session>.json |
scripts/topic_grouper.py |
Heuristic 6-12 section grouping from extracted topics |
scripts/discussion_question_validator.py |
Bloom higher-order quality check; flags recall-only questions |
scripts/generate_reading_list.js |
Bundled Node.js DOCX generator — JSON input → .docx output |
references/applied_domain_weaving.md — search-quality canon (7+ sources)references/audience_calibration.md — undergrad vs grad summary jargon (7+ sources)references/bundled_script_pattern.md — why bundle vs inline (7+ sources)| Failure | Behavior |
|---|---|
| Consensus rate-limit hit | Wait 3s, retry once, log |
| Search returns 0 for a section | Note section as "limited results — consider manual supplementation" |
| 3 consecutive failures | Stop, alert user, share collected so far |
docx package not installed |
Script attempts npm install; if still failing, fail with clear message |
| DOCX validation fails | Unpack XML, log issue, ask user to retry |
| Syllabus format unsupported | List supported formats, ask user to convert |
| Learning outcomes can't be extracted | Infer 3-5 from course description; mark as inferred in document |
Version: 1.0.0
Source spec: megaprompts/10-syllabus-megaprompt.md
Build pattern: Path B (direct conversion). Bundled-JS-DOCX-generator variant.