Dr. Avinash kumar gupta

← Back to README

Module 8 — Socratic-Mode Design Specification

Objective: A quality-improvement specification for authoring Socratic-mode prompts, expanded after early testing showed underperformance in Gemini Live.

Indication: Apply when authoring or revising any new Socratic-style prompt for Module 1 or any #VibeRounds session.

Lifecycle

Phase 1 · Initiation → Phase 2 · Execution → Phase 3 · Closure / Review

Phase 1 · Initiation — Pre-authoring specification review

Step 8.0: Spec Activation

Prompt:

#VibeRounds I am about to author a new Socratic-mode prompt. Before I write
it, review the Vibe Rounds Socratic-Mode Design Specification with me
point by point. For each criterion, I will tell you my design choice and
you will flag gaps or weaknesses. Begin with criterion 1.

Phase 2 · Execution — The 12-point specification

Original 10 Criteria (Validated)

  1. Forced commitment first: Learner must answer before hints unlock.
  2. Minimum effort threshold: ‘idk’ or 2-word replies trigger: ‘Give your best guess, differential, or next step.’
  3. 10-second rule / delayed rescue: The AI pauses and encourages thinking before revealing answers.
  4. Tiered hints: Hint 1 (framework), Hint 2 (narrowed direction), Hint 3 (partial answer), Final teaching summary.
  5. Effort-weighted assistance: More thoughtful responses earn deeper teaching.
  6. Reasoning grading: Grade logic, prioritisation, and uncertainty — not only correctness.
  7. Adaptive difficulty: Beginner gets supportive scaffolding; advanced learner gets aggressive Socratic questioning.
  8. Role calibration: The AI explicitly adopts the appropriate learning relationship — peer study partner, near-peer tutor, or senior-guided discussion — depending on selected rigour. No licensed clinical persona.
  9. Reflection before reveal: ‘Why do you think that?’, ‘What could be life-threatening here?’, ‘What are you possibly missing?’
  10. Answer-withholding policy: Full answer only after an attempt, reasoning, revision, or explicit surrender.

Added Criteria (Humanistic Expansion)

  1. Confidence-affirming acknowledgement: Every Socratic exchange must include at least one genuine, specific affirmation of what the learner got right or reasoned well — before any challenge or correction. Generic praise (‘Good!’) does not count; the affirmation must name the specific reasoning move. Rationale: challenge without affirmation triggers defensive cognition and inhibits the learning state.
  2. Strength-forward closure: Every Socratic session must end by naming the learner’s strongest reasoning quality from that session — not just listing what to improve. This anchors self-efficacy and creates a positive re-engagement drive for the next session.

[!NOTE] Criteria 11 and 12 correspond directly to Traits 1 and 2 of Framework A.

Phase 3 · Closure / Review — Prompt quality assurance

Step 8.1: Prompt Peer Review

Prompt:

#VibeRounds Score this Socratic prompt against the 12-point Vibe Rounds
Design Specification — one criterion at a time, Pass / Partial / Fail.
Overall quality score out of 12. Top two revisions required. [paste
prompt]

Step 8.2: Regression Test on Low-Effort Failure Mode

Prompt:

#VibeRounds Simulate a learner replying 'idk' to every question in this
Socratic prompt for 3 turns. Show exactly how the prompt handles
low-effort responses. Flag any turn where the minimum effort threshold is
not enforced. [paste prompt]

[!NOTE] Application Note: Tests the validated failure mode from Gemini Live testing.

Step 8.3: Difficulty Calibration Check

Prompt:

#VibeRounds Run this Socratic prompt twice in simulation: once with a
Year-1 medical student, once with a senior resident. Show the first 2
turns of each side by side. Assess whether adaptive difficulty produces
meaningfully different outputs, or whether both simulations look
identical — which indicates a calibration failure. [paste prompt]

Step 8.4: Humanistic Criteria Audit

Prompt:

#VibeRounds Specifically test criteria 11 and 12 of the Vibe Rounds Design
Specification against this prompt: (11) Does the prompt produce a
specific, named affirmation of the learner's correct reasoning — not
generic praise? (12) Does the prompt produce a strength-forward closure
that names the learner's best reasoning quality? Simulate the final
exchange of a session with a learner who has performed averagely — not
brilliantly, not poorly — and show me what the prompt generates. [paste
prompt]

Previous: ← Module 7 — Longitudinal & Cross-Case Learning

This is the final module. Up next: browse the Supplementary Frameworks or Reference Material.

← Back to README