Subject Cheat Sheet: STEM, Humanities, Languages, CS

I'm working on a [subject] problem. I want to solve it myself. Your job is to be my coach, NOT to give me the answer. Problem: [paste] Here's how I want this to work: 1. Don't show me the full solution. 2. Ask me what my first step would be. 3. If my first step is right: confirm and ask me what's next. 4. If my first step is wrong: DON'T tell me the right step. Ask a guiding question that helps me see what I missed (e.g., "what does the problem tell you about [variable]?" or "what equation describes this kind of system?"). 5. Continue until I get to the answer. 6. After I have it, show me the cleanest version of the full solution and tell me where I struggled: so I know what to drill. Subject: [class + level] Topic: [specific concept] Be patient but specific. If I'm stuck for 2–3 questions in a row, give me a bigger hint: but never the answer.

I'm studying [topic] for [class: e.g., "Calc 1, integration techniques"] and I need to drill on it. Generate me a practice set: - 5 problems at "I get the basics" level - 3 problems at "exam-shaped, mixed concepts" level - 2 problems at "this would be the hardest one on the test" level For each problem, do NOT include the solution. Number them 1–10. After I work them on paper, I'll come back and tell you which numbers I want walked through. THEN you can show the solution path: but coach me on it the same way you do in the "coach me, don't solve it" prompt: ask me what my first step would have been before showing yours. Topic specifics: [optional: sub-topic, formula sheet I'm allowed, calculator allowed or not, etc.]

I'm preparing for [class] and I want to test my thinking on [topic / question / argument]. Be a Socratic sparring partner. Specifically: 1. I'll state my current take on the topic in 2–3 sentences. 2. Ask me ONE pointed question that probes the weakest part of my reasoning. 3. After I respond, identify whether my answer addressed the weakness or sidestepped it. 4. If sidestepped: ask the question again, sharper. 5. After 4–5 rounds, give me a debrief: - Where my argument is strongest - Where it's weakest - One counter-argument a smart opponent would raise that I should be ready to answer - One source or thinker I should engage with that would complicate or strengthen my view Be intellectually rigorous, not nice. The point is to make my actual thinking sharper, not to validate it. My take: [your argument] Class context: [name + level]

I just read [text: author, title, chapters or page range]. Test whether I actually understood it. Ask me, one at a time: 1. ONE question about the central argument or thesis. Don't tell me if I'm right: wait until I answer, then probe. 2. ONE question about evidence the author used (which examples, which sources, which claims). 3. ONE question about a counter-argument the author addressed (or should have). 4. ONE question about how this text connects to [other text we've read in this class: name it] or to a broader debate in [discipline]. 5. ONE question about something the author left out, glossed over, or assumed without arguing. After my answers, give me a one-paragraph debrief: what I clearly understood, what I missed, and one specific passage to re-read. Don't summarize the text up front. The whole point is to find out what I retained, not to give me the cheat sheet.

I'm learning [language] at [level: beginner / intermediate / advanced / specific course like "Spanish 201"]. Be my conversation partner. Specifically: 1. We're going to have a conversation entirely in [language] about [topic: e.g., "ordering food at a restaurant" or "describing my weekend" or "discussing climate policy"]. 2. Match my level: slightly above is fine (a stretch helps), but don't drown me in vocabulary I don't know. 3. After every 3–4 of my messages, pause and tell me (in English): - One thing I said well - One mistake I made (grammar, word choice, or naturalness):show the corrected version - One word or phrase I should have used that would have sounded more native 4. Then continue the conversation in [language]. Use voice mode if I tell you I'm walking around: I want to practice speaking, not just typing. Otherwise, text is fine. Don't switch to English unless I ask. The whole point is the immersion.

I'm learning [language] and I keep getting [specific grammar concept: e.g., "Spanish subjunctive mood after expressions of doubt" or "French passé composé vs imparfait" or "Mandarin tone changes when a third tone is followed by another third tone"] wrong. Drill me on it. Specifically: 1. Give me 10 sentences in English where I have to translate to [language] using this grammar concept. 2. Mix the difficulty: some obvious, some that look like the rule but actually need an exception. 3. Don't give me the answers up front. 4. After I attempt all 10, grade them: ✓ correct / ✗ wrong / ~ partially right (and explain the partial). 5. For every wrong one, give me the correct version AND name what specifically I got wrong (vocab? conjugation? word order? tone?). 6. After the grade, generate 5 more sentences targeting just the patterns I missed. Stay in drill mode. No filler conversation. I'm here to fix one thing.

I'm taking [class: e.g., "CS101 in Python"] and I'm stuck on a problem. Here's my code and the error. Code: [paste your code] Error: [paste the error message] What I'm trying to do: [describe in one sentence] Don't give me the fixed code. Instead: 1. Explain what the error message actually means in plain language. 2. Tell me what part of MY code is causing it (point to the specific line). 3. Ask me a question that would help me figure out the fix on my own. 4. Wait for my next attempt. If I'm wrong twice in a row on the same fix, give me a slightly bigger hint: but still not the working code.

I just wrote this code for [class + assignment description]. I want a code review BEFORE I submit. Don't rewrite it for me. Code: [paste] What it's supposed to do: [1–2 sentences] Review it for: 1. Correctness: does it actually do what I described? Walk through one example input mentally and tell me what happens. 2. Style: anything that's hard to read, badly named, or against the conventions of [language]? Point to specific lines. 3. Edge cases: what input would break this? List 2–3 specific cases I should test. 4. Concept gaps: does my code suggest I'm misunderstanding any part of [topic: e.g., "recursion" or "list comprehensions" or "async/await"]? Do NOT give me rewritten code. Tell me where to look and what to think about. I'll fix it myself.