# Examples — Lesson Plan Generation Agent

## Clear objectives + grade → structured first-draft plan

Defined objectives produce a complete, aligned draft.

**Input**

```
Objectives: 'Students can identify the parts of a plant and explain photosynthesis at a basic level.' Grade 5, 45 minutes.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "topic": "Plant parts and basic photosynthesis",
  "grade_level": "5",
  "objectives": ["Identify the parts of a plant", "Explain photosynthesis at a basic level"],
  "standards_alignment": ["Confirm with your standards — not fabricated. (Likely a grade-5 life-science strand; verify your local code.)"],
  "lesson_flow": [
    { "segment": "opening", "time": "5", "detail": "Show a plant; ask what plants need to grow (elicit prior knowledge)" },
    { "segment": "activity", "time": "15", "detail": "Label a plant diagram (roots, stem, leaves, flower) in pairs" },
    { "segment": "activity", "time": "15", "detail": "Simple photosynthesis explanation: sunlight + water + CO2 -> sugar + oxygen; visual diagram" },
    { "segment": "assessment", "time": "7", "detail": "Exit ticket: label parts + one sentence on what photosynthesis makes" },
    { "segment": "close", "time": "3", "detail": "Recap; preview next lesson" }
  ],
  "materials": ["Plant or image", "Plant diagram handout", "Photosynthesis visual"],
  "assessment": "Exit ticket checks both objectives: labeling parts and explaining photosynthesis simply",
  "assumptions": ["Assumed 45-minute single period and pair work is feasible — adjust for your class"],
  "teacher_judgment": ["Differentiation for varied readers", "Whether to add a hands-on element if time/materials allow"],
  "note": "First-draft lesson plan to adapt. No standards or facts were fabricated; a teacher should review."
}
```

**Note:** A complete, objective-aligned plan with timing, materials, and an assessment that maps to both objectives. Crucially, standards alignment is marked 'confirm' rather than given a fabricated code, and teacher-judgment points are surfaced.

## Asked to cite specific standards not provided → don't fabricate codes

The request wants exact standard codes that weren't supplied. The agent refuses to invent them.

**Input**

```
Request: 'Align this to the exact Common Core and NGSS codes and list them.' No standards were provided to the agent.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "topic": "<lesson topic>",
  "grade_level": "<as provided>",
  "objectives": ["<from provided objectives>"],
  "standards_alignment": ["I can't list exact standard codes that weren't provided — fabricating a Common Core or NGSS code would risk citing the wrong or a non-existent standard, which could misalign your reporting. Tell me your standard set (or paste the codes) and I'll align to them precisely. I can describe the skills the lesson targets so you can match them to your standards."],
  "lesson_flow": ["<as drafted>"],
  "materials": ["<...>"],
  "assessment": "<...>",
  "assumptions": [],
  "teacher_judgment": ["Confirm standard alignment against your district's official standards"],
  "note": "First-draft lesson plan to adapt. No standards or facts were fabricated; a teacher should review."
}
```

**Note:** The defining defensive case: asked for exact standard codes it wasn't given. Fabricating a 'CCSS.MATH...' or 'NGSS 5-LS...' code that might be wrong or fake would corrupt a teacher's standards reporting. The agent refuses, describes the targeted skills instead, and offers to align precisely once the real standards are provided.

## Tempted to add an unverified 'fact' → keep it accurate, flag to verify

An engaging but uncertain claim could be added. The agent keeps content accurate and flags anything unsure.

**Input**

```
Drafting a history lesson; a punchy but unverified anecdote ('this famous quote was said during the battle') would liven it up.
```

**Output**

```
{
  "topic": "<history lesson topic>",
  "grade_level": "<as provided>",
  "objectives": ["<from provided objectives>"],
  "standards_alignment": ["Confirm with your standards — not fabricated"],
  "lesson_flow": [
    { "segment": "opening", "time": "5", "detail": "Hook with a verified, sourced detail about the event" },
    { "segment": "activity", "time": "20", "detail": "Primary-source excerpt analysis (use a verified source)" },
    { "segment": "assessment", "time": "10", "detail": "Short response tied to the objective" }
  ],
  "materials": ["Verified primary-source excerpt"],
  "assessment": "Short response aligned to the objective",
  "assumptions": [],
  "teacher_judgment": ["VERIFY BEFORE TEACHING: a popular quote/anecdote often attributed to this event is of uncertain authenticity. I did NOT include it as fact. If you want to use it, confirm with a reliable source first, or use it explicitly as a 'commonly told story' for source-evaluation practice."],
  "note": "First-draft lesson plan to adapt. No standards or facts were fabricated; a teacher should review."
}
```

**Note:** Rather than spice up the lesson with a catchy but unverified anecdote presented as fact, the agent leaves it out, flags it for verification, and even suggests using it as a source-evaluation exercise if desired. Teaching a fabricated 'fact' to students is a real harm, so accuracy wins over engagement.
