Start here

Use this prompt when you need to run a short spoken assessment about AI-assisted work: a teacher checking a student, a hiring manager checking a take-home task, or a team lead checking a colleague's draft. You run the conversation; the prompt only prepares your materials.

What to paste. Five blocks, all in one message: (1) context and stakes — who is assessed, how long, graded or coached, what happens after; (2) the work artifact — a short description plus the parts you can actually paste; (3) your rubric — 3–6 things you care about; (4) suspected shortcuts or weak spots; (5) constraints — off-limits topics and any accommodation you mentioned.

Where to paste. Any ordinary AI chat that accepts text. No terminal, account setup or API work is needed.

How to check the output. Confirm every question maps to one rubric item you named, each question can be answered aloud without a screen, and no question is an accusation about what the person did. Check that the flag list names things you should double-check rather than judging the artifact for you.

What the kit gives you

Missing inputs

The prompt asks for items 2, 3 and 5 and stops if any is missing — it will not guess your artifact's contents or your rubric. If your suspected-shortcut notes are missing it still proceeds, but says so in the output.

Limitations and permissions

This kit prepares a conversation only. It does not run the interview, record it, contact anyone, or decide an outcome. Apply your own policy on recording and consent. Keep legal, disciplinary, medical and accommodation decisions out of scope; the prompt flags them for you instead of drafting them. Routine note: source reviewed; runtime not tested.

FAQ

Can I use it without any AI tool? The structure works as a planning checklist, but the prompt itself is meant to be pasted into a text-accepting AI chat to generate the wording.

What if I only describe the artifact? Then the kit writes questions as "about the part where you ____" rather than assuming contents you did not paste.

Complete reusable prompt

Oral Defense Question Bank for AI-Assisted Work

You are helping me prepare an oral assessment (a short live conversation) that checks whether a person can explain their own work and their own judgment when AI tools were used. This may be a teacher assessing students, a hiring manager assessing a candidate's take-home task, or a team lead assessing a colleague's AI-assisted draft. I run the conversation myself. You only prepare my materials.

My inputs (I will paste all of these)

1. Context and stakes: who is being assessed, how long the conversation is, whether it is graded/hired/coached, and what happens after.
2. The work artifact: a short description of what they submitted, built, or produced — plus the parts I can actually see. If I only describe it and don't paste it, do not assume its contents.
3. My rubric: the 3–6 things I actually care about (for example: can they explain choices, can they spot their own errors, can they judge when the AI output was wrong, can they work without the tool).
4. Suspected shortcuts or weak spots: what I think they may have accepted uncritically, skipped, or copied.
5. Constraints: topics that are off-limits, anything a candidate must not be asked, and any accommodation I mentioned.

If any of 2, 3, or 5 is missing, do not guess. Ask me for it and stop. If item 4 is missing, proceed but say so in the output.

What to produce

Return a Markdown kit with these sections, in this order.

1. Opening script (30–60 seconds). Neutral wording that sets the expectation: they will explain their reasoning out loud, they may consult their own notes if I allow it, and the goal is understanding rather than catching them out. No praise, no threat.

2. Question bank, grouped by rubric item. For each rubric item give 3–4 questions, each tagged:

• open — asks them to narrate a decision;
• probe — follows up on a specific part of the artifact;
• counterfactual — asks what they would do if a stated condition changed. Every question must be answerable in speech, must not require them to see a screen, and must not have a single memorizable correct answer.

3. Follow-up ladders. For the three most important questions, give two levels of follow-up: a gentle one ("can you walk me through that step?") and a pressing one ("if that part were wrong, what would break, and how would you know?"). Keep both respectful.

4. Judgment probes about AI use specifically. 4–6 questions that separate "the tool produced this" from "I decided this was right": what they verified, what they could not verify, what they changed, and one case where they overrode the tool.

5. Hands-off check. 2–3 questions or micro-tasks that a person who truly understands the work can answer without the tool, clearly labelled as optional depending on my time budget.

6. Scoring notes. For each rubric item, one line describing what a strong spoken answer sounds like versus a shallow one (for example: names a specific step and a reason, versus repeats a general claim with no example). No numeric weights unless I gave them.

7. Flag list for me, not for them. Anything in my inputs that I should double-check before the conversation: claims in their artifact I cannot verify, questions that could touch an off-limits topic, and places where a fair answer would need evidence I don't have.

8. Timing plan. A minute-by-minute outline that fits my stated duration, with a clearly marked cut list if we run long.

9. Boundaries note. One short paragraph reminding me that this kit prepares a conversation only — it does not run the interview, record it, contact anyone, or decide an outcome, and that I must apply my own policy on recording and consent.

Rules

• Never assert what the person did or believed. Questions, not accusations.
• Never invent details about the artifact beyond what I supplied. Where I was vague, write the question as "about the part where you ____".
• Keep legal, disciplinary, medical, or accommodation decisions out of scope; flag them for me instead of drafting them.
• Plain language a non-specialist can read aloud.

Worked example (fictional, for shape only)

Labelled example input: Stakes: 15-minute practice defense for a 6-week data-project course. Artifact: a short analysis script and a two-paragraph summary; I can see the summary only. Rubric: explains pipeline choices; detects weak evidence; states limits. Weak spot: summary claims a strong trend from few data points.

Illustrative question shape: probe — "You wrote that the trend is clear. Walk me through how many data points are behind that sentence, and what you'd say if I removed half of them." Illustrative scoring note: Strong answer names the count and says the claim would need to soften; shallow answer repeats "it's obvious" with no number.

Checks before I use this kit (apply to the example above)

• Pass: every question maps to one named rubric item; fail if a question is interesting but unscoreable.
• Pass: the trend question can be answered aloud from memory in under a minute; fail if it requires the screen.
• Pass: the kit flags that I can't verify the script from the summary alone; fail if it praises or condemns the artifact.
• Pass: no question touches accommodation or conduct issues; fail if one does, and move it to the flag list.

References and reuse

• I replaced traditional coding tests with real conversations about how my students solve problems using AI. · Mon, 05 Oct 2026 16:00:00 +0000

Original TokRepo prompt · CC BY 4.0. Reference documents retain their own rights.