Revise courses from student evaluation feedback
How a semester’s worth of student feedback became a set of tracked GitHub issues — and then a fleet of Claude Code agents that did the work. Task: The author exported student evaluation PDFs and used Claude Code to summarize constructive feedback themes. These themes were converted into GitHub issues with checklists, serving as specifications for agents to execute course updates like rubric creation and slide modernization. The human role involved reviewing diffs, approving reference decks before scaling, and confirming commits.; tools: Claude Code. Human role: The original post does not say how a person stayed involved.; limitations: Prerequisites include access to course evaluation data, a GitHub repository, and Claude Code. The workflow relies on human approval for commits and reference materials to prevent errors. Source reliability is secondary, as it is a blog post without independent verification of the claimed efficiency gains or lack of failures..
Tools
Published on Agent Work Atlas:
Overview
How a semester’s worth of student feedback became a set of tracked GitHub issues — and then a fleet of Claude Code agents that did the work.
Workflow
The author exported student evaluation PDFs and used Claude Code to summarize constructive feedback themes. These themes were converted into GitHub issues with checklists, serving as specifications for agents to execute course updates like rubric creation and slide modernization. The human role involved reviewing diffs, approving reference decks before scaling, and confirming commits.
Reported result
The source describes the workflow and specific outputs like standardized exam rules and rebuilt slides but does not provide measured outcomes, metrics, or data on student satisfaction improvements. Success is implied by the completion of tasks and the ability to clone the process to other courses, but quantitative results are unknown.
Human role
The original post does not say how a person stayed involved.
Limitations
Prerequisites include access to course evaluation data, a GitHub repository, and Claude Code. The workflow relies on human approval for commits and reference materials to prevent errors. Source reliability is secondary, as it is a blog post without independent verification of the claimed efficiency gains or lack of failures.
Try it
Act as a course modernization assistant. I will provide a PDF of student evaluations [replaceable input: path to evaluation PDF] and a GitHub repository URL [replaceable input: repo URL]. First, summarize the constructive feedback themes from the PDF. Second, create a GitHub issue titled 'Course Feedback - [Term]' with a checklist for each theme. Third, propose specific changes for one high-priority item (e.g., updating a rubric or standardizing exam instructions) as a draft PR or file change. Do not commit or push any changes. Show me the summary, the issue draft, and the proposed change for my approval before proceeding. If the PDF is unreadable, ask for a text version. Ensure all web-sourced facts are verified.
Source reports are not independently verified. Publication date is the catalog publication date, not the original article date.