PE Prep Pro Engineering

View saved version →

---
name: diagnose-pe-readiness
description: Diagnose a student's Civil, Mechanical, or Electrical PE study readiness using reviewed PE Prep Pro practice sets. Use when a student asks what to study, wants a baseline drill, or needs weak topics prioritized without storing answer history.
---

# Diagnose PE Readiness

Use the PE Prep Pro Agent Hub to run a short, transparent diagnostic. This is study guidance, not a prediction of passing or a substitute for the current NCEES exam specification.

## Workflow

1. Ask for the target discipline if it is not clear.
2. Call `list_disciplines` and use only returned topic names and concept IDs.
3. Choose up to three representative topics. Run separate `create_practice_set` calls with one or two items per topic.
4. Present each returned question exactly as supplied. Do not solve, hint at, or reveal an answer before the student commits.
5. Call `grade_practice_set` only with the signed token and the student's explicit answers.
6. Summarize strengths and gaps from this session only. Do not imply persistent tracking.
7. Recommend at most three next topics, tying each recommendation to observed evidence and the returned explanation or reference starting points.

## Guardrails

- Never alter question wording, options, citations, reviewer, or revision metadata.
- Never claim a readiness percentage from fewer than 10 answered items.
- Label small samples as directional.
- If a tool reports no matching content, call `list_disciplines`; do not invent a topic or item.
- If content appears wrong or ambiguous, use `report_content_issue` with the student's permission and omit personal information.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: review-engineering-calculations
description: Preflight engineering calculation memos, spreadsheets, equation sets, assumptions, unit conversions, and user-supplied code excerpts. Use for a preliminary evidence-based calculation review that independently recomputes supported arithmetic and flags dimensional, citation, and engineering-judgment gaps without certifying the work.
---

# Engineering Calculation Preflight

Produce a preliminary calculation-review report. Never claim to seal, stamp, approve, certify, or establish code compliance.

## Required workflow

1. Inventory every supplied file, sheet, equation, input, output, assumption, unit, cross-reference, and cited standard. Preserve exact file, page, cell, section, or equation locations.
2. Read `references/input-schema.md`, `references/report-schema.md`, and `references/safety-boundaries.md` before normalizing calculations or writing findings.
3. Extract supported arithmetic into one JSON package matching `references/input-schema.md`. Do not silently repair source values or equations.
4. Run `python3 scripts/check-calculations.py INPUT.json --output RESULTS.json`. The script uses only the Python standard library and safely parses arithmetic.
5. Reconcile script results with the source. Check signs, bounds, significant figures, spreadsheet references, assumptions, dependencies, and equation-to-result traceability.
6. Verify citations only against documents supplied by the user or public primary sources the host is permitted to access. Record “not verified” when the cited text or edition is unavailable. Never invent a citation, section, or requirement.
7. Write the report using `assets/report-template.md` and all sections required by `references/report-schema.md`.

## Severity

- `critical`: a demonstrated error could materially change a result or design decision, such as a consequential sign reversal or order-of-magnitude error.
- `major`: a material arithmetic, dimensional, reference, or missing-input issue that prevents reliance on the result.
- `minor`: a localized issue unlikely to change the engineering decision by itself.
- `observation`: clarification, traceability, or recommended verification with no demonstrated material error.

Do not assign `critical` or `major` merely because evidence is absent. State the gap and its consequence. Unsupported equations must be identified as unsupported, never guessed.

## Safety boundary

Refuse any request to stamp, seal, certify, approve, or represent the report as a licensed-engineer review. Offer the preliminary preflight plus a sign-off checklist for the responsible engineer. If an apparent condition presents an immediate safety risk, lead with the specific evidence and recommend stopping affected work under the user's established safety and engineering-review procedures.

Referenced files: 6

View saved version →

---
name: review-pe-solution
description: Review a student's attempted solution to a PE Prep Pro practice item after the student commits an answer. Use to compare setup, arithmetic, units, and reasoning against the reviewed server-side explanation without inventing citations.
---

# Review PE Solution

Review the student's process after an attempt, not before it.

## Workflow

1. Require the practice item ID or a current PE Prep Pro attempt token plus the student's selected option and written work.
2. If the item is still ungraded, call `grade_practice_set` with the student's explicit answer. Never decode, inspect, or speculate about token contents.
3. Inventory the student's givens, target quantity, equation, substitutions, units, and final selection.
4. Compare only against the tool-returned correct option, explanation, sources, and revision metadata.
5. Report the earliest consequential divergence, then any downstream arithmetic or unit effects.
6. End with one corrected solution path and one short transfer lesson.

## Boundaries

- Do not invent source sections, equations, or handbook language.
- Say “not established by the supplied work” when a step cannot be verified.
- Do not equate a practice solution with a project engineering review.
- If the reviewed explanation itself appears defective, stop relying on it and submit a content issue with the user's permission.

Referenced files: 1

View saved version →

---
name: run-targeted-pe-drill
description: Run a focused Civil, Mechanical, or Electrical PE practice drill using PE Prep Pro's reviewed MCP questions and server-side grading. Use when a student wants a quiz by discipline, topic, or difficulty.
---

# Run Targeted PE Drill

Run a compact practice loop without leaking answers.

## Workflow

1. Resolve the exact discipline and topic with `list_disciplines`. If the requested topic is unavailable, offer the nearest returned topics.
2. Call `create_practice_set` for one to five questions. Default to three unless the student requests a different count.
3. Show questions and options exactly as returned. Preserve units and review metadata.
4. Wait for the student's committed choices. Do not calculate or critique while an item is unanswered.
5. Call `grade_practice_set` once with the matching token and an answer for every item in that token.
6. Explain each result from the returned worked explanation and sources. Distinguish arithmetic errors, unit errors, and concept errors only when supported by the student's work.
7. Offer one follow-up drill or one concept brief; avoid an open-ended sequence unless requested.

## Rules

- A token expires and is revision-bound. Create a new set rather than reconstructing a token.
- Do not place answers in an ungraded prompt, hint, title, or recap.
- Do not claim NCEES endorsement or reproduce protected handbook, code, or standard text.
- Use `report_content_issue` for suspected factual, calculation, citation, ambiguity, or typo problems.

Referenced files: 1