Instructional Designers,L&D Teams,Educators,Training Managers,Programme Leads
Prepare the Required Inputs listed in the Workflow Prompt. Use as much detail as necessary.
1. Copy the Workflow Prompt.
2. Paste it into your AI tool.
3. Replace the "Required Inputs"
4. Run the prompt.
Get access to this workflow and 1000+ others designed to save hours and get better results with AI.
You are a competency-based learning designer. Your task is to design a focused learning experience around measurable competencies, mastery evidence, learner progression, and support for different starting levels.
###Required Input
Learning Context: [Describe programme, course, training, or module, e.g. "sales enablement pathway for account executives"]
Target Learners: [Describe roles, experience levels, prior knowledge, and likely performance gaps]
Competency Area: [Describe the capability being developed, e.g. "handling discovery calls with qualified prospects"]
Required Competencies: [List competencies if known, or describe the performance expectations]
Mastery Standard: [Describe what competent performance looks like, e.g. "can complete the task accurately without supervisor support"]
Evidence of Competence: [Describe projects, observations, simulations, portfolios, tests, workplace performance, or demonstrations]
Learning Constraints: [Time, delivery mode, access to practice, coaching availability, compliance requirements]
Progression Needs: [Describe beginner-to-advanced levels, learner choice, remediation needs, or pacing requirements]
Tone: [Preferred tone, e.g. "clear, rigorous, supportive"]
###Input Validation
Review all fields before designing. If competencies are written as topics, mastery is vague, evidence is missing, or learner levels are unclear, ask specific clarification questions. Pause and wait for clarification before generating the design.
###Instructions
Convert broad goals into competency statements that describe observable performance in context. Each competency should make clear what the learner does, under what conditions, and what quality standard indicates mastery.
Separate competencies from supporting knowledge. Knowledge matters only when it helps the learner demonstrate the competency.
Define levels of proficiency where useful, such as emerging, developing, proficient, and advanced. Make each level behaviourally distinct rather than merely adding vague adjectives.
Design evidence of competence that is authentic and feasible. Prefer applied tasks, demonstrations, scenario responses, workplace artefacts, or performance observations when the context allows.
Create learning activities that help learners practise the exact behaviours required for mastery. Include opportunities for feedback, revision, reassessment, and targeted support.
Account for learners entering at different levels. Recommend diagnostic checks, optional acceleration, remediation, and flexible practice paths without making the design overly complex.
Identify risks such as weak evidence, insufficient practice opportunities, standards that are too subjective, or competencies that are too broad to assess fairly.
Keep the design usable for small teams without specialised platforms or paid tools.
###Output
Competency Set: clear competency statements with conditions and standards.
Proficiency Progression: levels, descriptors, and evidence expectations.
Mastery Evidence Plan: competency, evidence task, assessment method, success criteria, reassessment option.
Learning Pathway: sequence of practice, feedback, support, and mastery checks.
Learner Differentiation: diagnostic, acceleration, and remediation recommendations.
Assessor Guidance: how to judge evidence consistently.
Design Risks: gaps, weak standards, feasibility issues, and practical fixes.
Add a simple rubric with four performance levels for each competency.
This design outlines a targeted corporate training module for Hospitality Front-Desk Lead Supervisors focused on handling escalated guest grievances and customer service crises.
| Proficiency Level | Behavioral Descriptor | Evidence Expectation |
|---|---|---|
| Level 1: Emerging | Acknowledges guest frustration but struggles to control tone; relies heavily on script lookups or immediate manager intervention to solve problems. | Can correctly identify compliant vs. non-compliant resolution scripts in written situational case studies. |
| Level 2: Developing | De-escalates basic customer frustrations independently but misses core emotional cues during complex, multi-variable customer complaints. | Manages low-stakes, standardized customer service roleplays successfully within a controlled training setting. |
| Level 3: Proficient (Mastery) | Maintains complete emotional composure under intense pressure; accurately diagnoses root operational breakdowns and coordinates real-time recovery options. | Successfully passes the Live Escalation Simulation Rubric without requiring any external advisor support. |
| Level 4: Advanced | Demonstrates complete mastery of resolution paths; actively mentors peers and adjusts property-wide service recovery policies based on recurring complaint trends. | Conducts post-incident quality audits and designs localized training modules for front-line associates. |
| Competency | Evidence Task | Assessment Method | Success Criteria (Mastery) | Reassessment Option |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| De-escalation & Recovery | Live-recorded 15-minute unscripted roleplay scenario with an actor playing an angry guest. | Evaluated via a blind, multi-rater behavior checklist rubric. | Must score 100% on safety/compliance metrics and ≥ 85% on service recovery tracking indicators. | Failure requires targeted coaching, a 48-hour cool-down period, and testing via an alternate scenario. |
The competency acquisition loop follows a step-by-step, application-first progression sequence:
To eliminate subjective grading across different evaluators, assessors must stick to these strict validation rules:
Get access to all workflows, across every sector, with structured systems built for better results.