Run a short targeted quiz filtered by domain, task statement, scenario, or weak areas, with immediate per-item feedback. Use for practice between full mock exams.
Scanned 9/6/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add alexiocassanifm/anthropic-certifications --skill quiz --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Quiz?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/alexiocassanifm-quiz)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: quiz
description: Run a short targeted quiz filtered by domain, task statement, scenario, or weak areas, with immediate per-item feedback. Use for practice between full mock exams.
argument-hint: [--domain N | --task N.N | --scenario N | --weak] [--count N]
---
# Quiz
A short, focused practice set — not a full exam. For that, use `/mock-exam`.
## Resolve the certification first
This repository holds several certification study kits under `certifications/`.
Before reading anything, decide which one you are working in:
- If the user names one (`ccar-f`), use `certifications/<slug>/`.
- If only one directory exists under `certifications/`, use it without asking.
- If several exist and the request is ambiguous, ask which.
Everything below is relative to that certification directory — `wiki/`,
`questions/`, and `progress/` all live inside it.
## Select items
Default: 10 items. Accept `--count`.
Filters:
| Argument | Behaviour |
|---|---|
| `--domain N` | Items from that domain |
| `--task N.N` | Items for one task statement |
| `--scenario N` | Items tagged with that exam scenario |
| `--weak` | Read `progress/state.json`; draw from the lowest-`confidence` task statements, weighted by domain blueprint weight |
| none | Spread across all five domains in blueprint proportion |
Prefer items whose id is **not** in that task statement's `seen_ids`. If the pool
is exhausted, reuse and say so.
## Run
Present **one item at a time** with **`AskUserQuestion`**, one call per item:
- `questions`: a single entry.
- `question`: the item's scenario, then a blank line, then the stem verbatim —
`Scenario 3 — Multi-Agent Research System`, naming both when `scenario` lists two,
and `No scenario — general` when it is `null`. Stems refer back to their scenario
with definite articles (*the* coordinator, *the* extraction pipeline), so without
the line the candidate cannot tell which cast is meant. This matters even under
`--scenario N`, where every item shares one scenario: name it once when the quiz
starts and still tag each item.
- `header`: `Q1`, `Q2`, … — the position in this quiz, not the bank id.
- `options`: exactly four, in the order they appear in the bank. `label` is the
option's letter `A`, `B`, `C`, `D`; `description` is its full `text`.
- `multiSelect`: `true` when `select_count > 1`, `false` otherwise. The tool does
not enforce a count, so if the number selected does not match `select_count`,
say what was required and re-ask the same item once before scoring it.
- No `preview`.
Do not reveal anything early: no hints in the `question` text, no ordering of the
options that telegraphs the answer, nothing in `header`.
The tool always adds an **Other** choice. If it is used, read the free text as the
answer when it plainly names an option, and otherwise treat the item as unanswered
and move on.
After each answer:
- **Correct** — confirm, then give the `why` for the correct option *and* for at
least the most tempting distractor, naming its family.
- **Wrong** — give the `why` for what they chose and for the correct option. Then
name the family and connect it to the relevant heuristic in `wiki/heuristics/`.
The family is the transferable lesson; the item is not.
Name a family the way `/study` does — see its **Name things the way a learner can
use them** section. Describe the trap first and give the canonical name once, and
keep bank item ids out of anything the learner reads, here and in the report.
Keep feedback tight — two or three sentences unless they ask for more.
## Report
At the end:
- Score, and **percent-correct by domain**
- Task statements that were missed, with links to their wiki notes
- Distractor families they fell for. `solves-different-problem` is the broadest
family and about half the bank, so treat it as the base rate: a few misses there
means the general skill of matching a fix to the *stated* cause needs work. A
repeat in any of the other six is sharper — it points at one specific reasoning
habit, and is worth calling out with the matching `wiki/heuristics/` note
Then update `progress/state.json`: per task statement, increment `seen` and
`correct`, append the item ids to `seen_ids`, set `last_reviewed`, and adjust
`confidence`.
Do **not** report a scaled score. See `wiki/exam/format-and-scoring.md`.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!