What This Skill Does

This skill audits a curriculum framework against a statutory or accreditation requirement list and produces a structured coverage table showing which framework content addresses each requirement and how strongly. It is framework-agnostic: the framework being audited can be any school's curriculum, any programme of study, or any competency framework. The requirement list can be a statutory mandate, an accreditation standard, or any external checklist that the school is expected to meet. Neither input is assumed to be REAL School, UK, or any other specific context.

The skill classifies each requirement match as direct (the framework explicitly addresses the requirement), partial (the framework addresses related content but not the specific requirement), indirect (tangentially related content is present), or none (no framework content touches the requirement). This four-tier scale follows Webb's (1997) categorical-concurrence logic, operationalised at the requirement level rather than the item level. The skill is transparent about what "coverage" means in this context: topical presence in the framework documentation. A framework item that touches a requirement topic does not necessarily mean the requirement is fully taught, assessed, or enacted at the intended cognitive depth.

The skill produces three outputs: a Markdown coverage table for PLC or accreditation preparation, a matching CSV for spreadsheet filtering, and a prose gap summary for narrative reporting. The coverage_statistics object gives a headline count for quick scanning. These outputs are scaffolds for human professional judgement — they are designed to reduce the time a curriculum coordinator spends locating evidence, not to replace the judgement required to confirm it.

Evidence Foundation

Webb (1997) — The canonical four-dimension alignment framework establishes categorical concurrence as the foundational coverage dimension: do the framework and the requirement list address the same topics at all? The skill uses Webb's logic to classify match strength, stopping at categorical concurrence and range. Depth-of-knowledge alignment — whether the framework addresses a requirement at the required cognitive depth — is explicitly out of scope and flagged as a human judgement task in Known Limitations.

Porter et al. (2002) — The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum methodology establishes the row-per-requirement approach used in this skill's coverage table: each requirement gets its own row, and framework content is mapped to it rather than the reverse. This ensures that requirements with no framework coverage (the gap rows) are as visible as those with strong coverage, and prevents the natural tendency to organise the output around what the framework does cover rather than what the requirement list asks for.

Input Schema

Required inputs.

• framework — The curriculum framework being audited. Accepts band-tagged JSON from the Developmental Band Translator (for band-level filtering), or plain markdown or text with competencies and learning targets. If band-tagged, the skill can restrict the audit to specific bands via band_filter. If plain text, all framework content is audited without band distinction.