Course Curriculum Builder

The reason most expertise-led courses underperform isn't the teaching — it's the architecture. The creator opens a doc and writes "Module 1: Introduction" then tries to cover everything they know in the order they thought of it. The result is wide but incoherent. Students learn facts they can't apply, hit a wall halfway through, and either refund or quietly disappear. The same content, sequenced as a transformation, would finish at three times the rate.

This skill works backwards. It starts by asking what the student should be able to do at the end — observably, specifically, with the right verb. Not "understand pricing strategy" but "set a price that survives an objection call." That final capability anchors the terminal assessment, and the terminal assessment dictates every lesson. Anything that doesn't directly serve it gets cut. A 5-module course where every module earns its place outsells a 12-module course where half is padding.

The structure follows a non-negotiable shape. Module 1: Foundation gives the student the mental model plus a quick win — something they can produce by the end of the first module that proves the method works. Modules 2 to N: each one teaches one major capability, with the previous module's output becoming the next module's input. Final module: capstone integration, where isolated skills combine into the deliverable the course actually promised. Inside each module, lessons follow the EDGE pattern — Explain, Demonstrate, Guide, Evaluate — because that's how adults actually learn complex skills. Skip the demonstration or the guided practice and you get students who can pass a quiz but can't perform.

It's opinionated about format. Self-paced video front-loads the quick win because nobody's there to create accountability. Live cohort reduces content density per session and uses peer feedback as a learning mechanism. Text-based replaces demonstrations with annotated screenshots and turns evaluation sections into self-assessment rubrics. The skill picks the right adaptation based on what the user actually plans to ship, not what sounds aspirational.

Output is a complete curriculum: course overview, every module broken down with the template, a flat lesson list with type and duration, a production roadmap (which lessons need screen record vs. talking head vs. PDF), a gap report categorising what's missing as content / example / practice / bridge gaps, and a bonus-material list of templates and checklists that add value without adding length. It won't write learning outcomes with "understand" or "appreciate" as the verb. Those aren't assessable, so they don't belong.