A PhD student with AI: research, teaching, and grading

Every Monday at 7:00, prepare a review of what's new in my field.

My topic: [precise definition, 2 sentences]
Key terms in [my language]: [term 1], [term 2]
Key terms in English: [term 1], [term 2]
I'm interested in: peer-reviewed articles, preprints, conference
papers, and research reports from the last [14] days.
Not interested in: news articles, blog posts, marketing copy.

Output:
1. A list of findings — for each: author, year, title, where it was
   published, link
2. Two sentences per item: what it finds and why it's relevant to my topic
3. Sort them into: READ IN FULL / ABSTRACT IS ENOUGH / JUST LOG IT
4. Separately flag any work that contradicts my existing conclusions
5. At the end, 3 search queries in English I should use to keep digging

Cite a source for every claim. If you're not sure a paper exists,
say so instead of filling it in with a guess.

Go through all the uploaded studies and build a comparative
methodology table.

Columns:
author and year | research question | study design | sample (who, N) |
data collection method | measured variables and how they were
operationalized | statistical method | main result | stated limitations

Rules:
- fill it in strictly from the uploaded sources
- where a study doesn't state something, write NOT STATED, don't guess
- for each row, give the page the data comes from
- don't merge studies with different designs into a single row

Under the table, write:
1. Which methods recur across the field and which are one-offs
2. Where studies diverge in how they operationalize the same concept
3. Which combinations of sample and method nobody has used

Based on the uploaded sources, answer this question: [question].

Structure it like this:
1. Where authors agree — for each point of agreement, cite the studies
2. Where they directly disagree — for each dispute, both positions,
   who holds them, and what data backs each one up
3. Whether the disagreement is explainable by a difference in method,
   sample, or the period the data was collected in
4. Which studies are original research and which just cite someone
   else's findings
5. A timeline: how the view on this question has evolved

Don't add anything that isn't in the uploaded sources. Where the
sources don't answer the question, say so.

Prepare material for a 90-minute exercise session. I'm attaching my
lecture slides, course notes, and two papers this session is built on.

Course: [name], year: [2nd-year undergraduate], number of students: [25]
Session topic: [topic]
What they already know from the lecture: [list]
What I want them to be able to do: [independently calculate / tell
apart / propose ...]

Give me:
1. A time plan for the session in blocks (minutes, activity, format)
2. Five problems from easiest to hardest — for each: the problem
   statement, a complete worked solution, and an estimated time
3. For each problem, the most common student mistake and how to
   explain it on the spot
4. Two warm-up questions to open the session
5. What to assign as homework and how long I'll spend grading it

Base it on my own material and stick to the notation I use in it.
Where you'd need something that isn't in the material, write
MISSING: [what].

Students keep failing to understand [concept/procedure]. The
explanation I currently use is: [paste your explanation].

Give me 4 different ways to explain it:
1. Through a concrete example from the field
2. Through an everyday analogy — and note where the analogy stops
   holding, so I don't push it past that point
3. By deriving it from fundamentals they already know from [course]
4. Through a typical mistake: show what goes wrong when it's
   understood backwards

For each version, note who it fits (who thinks visually, who thinks
in calculations) and one check-in question I can use in class to
confirm they got it.

Here's the test and my answer key:

[paste the test and the key]

Go through the key like an experienced instructor and write:
1. Where the key is ambiguous — i.e., where two graders would give
   different scores for the same answer
2. Which partially correct approaches the key doesn't address at all
3. What alternative correct solution a student might write that the
   key would reject
4. A proposed addition of partial-credit points so the key can be
   applied mechanically

Don't change the point values for the problems. Return the amended
key as bullet points.

Attached is a scanned test (student number [07]), the assignment,
and the answer key.

Follow these steps, don't skip any:
1. Transcribe verbatim what the student wrote for each problem. Where
   the handwriting is illegible, write ILLEGIBLE and don't quote a guess.
2. For each problem, compare the answer against the key and propose a score.
3. For each proposal, write one sentence of reasoning referencing the
   specific point in the key.
4. Separately flag NEEDS REVIEW for answers that are partially
   correct, unusually phrased, illegible, or correct via a different
   approach than the key describes.
5. At the end, a point total and a list of everything I need to open
   and check myself.

Don't grade handwriting or spelling unless the key requires it.
Don't assign a grade, just points.

Here are the proposed scores for the entire set of tests (students
numbers [01]–[48]) with reasoning.

Check internal consistency:
1. Find pairs of answers that are the same in substance but got
   different point counts — for each, give both student numbers
2. Flag any problem where the spread of points looks suspiciously
   narrow or wide
3. List any problem that more than half the students failed, and
   note whether the issue is with the question or with the material
4. Build a table: student | points per problem | total

Don't change anything, just list the findings.

For each graded test, write the student short feedback following
this pattern:

- one sentence on what worked (specific, not “good job”)
- for each lost point: what specifically was missing and what it
  should have looked like
- one recommendation for what to review before the exam, with a
  reference to the relevant chapter in the course notes

Tone: matter-of-fact, kind, no irony, no judging the person —
we're evaluating the solution, not the student. Max 120 words.
Address students by number, don't use names.

[paste graded tests with points]

Attached are 15 of my sent replies to students from last semester.

Turn them into templates:
1. Sort them into types by the reason for the question (deadline,
   credit transfer, assignment instructions, absence excuse,
   consultation, technical submission problem)
2. For each type, build a template with square brackets for what
   changes ([name], [deadline], [assignment title])
3. Keep my tone and how I address people — don't make it more
   formal, and don't add phrases that aren't in my actual emails
4. For each template, note when NOT to use it and to answer
   personally instead

Keep the templates short. Where my original replies were rambling,
tighten them up but keep the information.

Every last Friday of the month, prepare a draft report for my advisor.

Base it on: my notes in the folder [path], calendar entries for
that month, and the list of sources I've read.

Report structure:
1. What I did over the month (3 to 5 bullets, specific)
2. Where I got stuck and what I need a decision on
3. What I'm planning for next month
4. Questions for my advisor — ones where their answer changes what I do
5. Status of publications and deadlines

Keep it brief, one page max. Don't make anything up — where the
material doesn't say what I did, write FILL IN.

I got reviews from two reviewers on my article [title].
I'm attaching the reviews and the manuscript.

Prepare material for my response:
1. Break out every comment separately, even if several are in one
   paragraph
2. Sort them into: agree and will fix / partially agree / disagree
   and need to defend / misunderstanding, just needs explaining
3. For each one, write exactly what I'll change in the text and on
   which page
4. For points where I disagree, propose a substantive argument backed
   by the data in the article — no defensive tone
5. List comments that contradict each other between the two reviewers

Don't write anything in final form for me, this is my working material.

Attached is the exact wording of our university's policy on AI use
in study and teaching, and the author guidelines for the journal [name].

Go through them and give me:
1. What's explicitly allowed under them
2. What's explicitly forbidden
3. What isn't mentioned and is therefore ambiguous — for each, note
   who to ask
4. The exact disclosure wording I should use, given that I used AI
   for: [source review / language editing / proposed test scoring /
   none of the above]
5. What I should record about using the tool in case anyone asks later

Quote directly from the attached text, don't paraphrase from general
knowledge.