Find the task, method or artifact you need, then use it in Claude or ChatGPT.
Task kits join existing resources into complete paths with inputs, decisions, artifacts, checks, revision and recovery. Stand-alone resources remain available. English task pages do not change the language of their sources.
Search and filter choices stay in this page. Do not enter document text or personal information. Nothing you type here is added to a link or saved by this control.
12 task kits and 396 stand-alone resources.
Connected Task Kit
A coherent theory of change and logframe with causal assumptions and unresolved measurement decisions visible.
Bring: Narrative; Results framework
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Build and check a results structureConnected Task Kit
An aligned indicator set, reference sheets and M&E plan with feasible collection burden and an explicit decision record.
Bring: Indicators; Results framework; M&E plan
5 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Make measurement feasibleConnected Task Kit
A baseline and sampling plan whose timing, frame, selection and precision claims are supported by actual inputs.
Bring: Indicators; Sampling frame; Baseline report
3 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Plan a baseline and defensible sampleConnected Task Kit
A reviewed instrument, sampling constraints and pilot plan, followed by revisions only when actual pilot evidence is supplied.
Bring: Study questions; Questionnaire; Sampling frame
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Prepare an instrument for a real pilotConnected Task Kit
A traceable analysis and handover, or an honest unexecuted specification when readable data or execution is unavailable.
Bring: Survey data; Codebook; Analysis plan
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Analyze survey evidence responsiblyConnected Task Kit
Aligned questions, evidence matrix and terms of reference, revised within actual time and resource constraints.
Bring: Program documents; Evaluation tor; Evaluation questions
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Commission an answerable evaluationConnected Task Kit
An appropriate DQA plan or evidence-based review with unverified checks and actual corrective decisions visible.
Bring: DQA plan; DQA report; Monitoring records
2 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Plan or review operational data qualityConnected Task Kit
A design-specific QED assessment with applicability limits, identification assumptions and causal claims explicit.
Bring: Evaluation design; Outcome data; Comparison strategy
2 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Design or review a quasi-experimental evaluationConnected Task Kit
A decision-focused economic assessment with comparable costs and outcomes, valid arithmetic and explicit uncertainty.
Bring: Cost data; Outcome data; Economic framework
2 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Assess value for money or cost effectivenessConnected Task Kit
A checked, revised progress report with traceable findings, reconciled figures and actionable proposed or agreed responses.
Bring: Monitoring records; Progress report; Financial records
5 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Turn reporting evidence into actionConnected Task Kit
A learning agenda, reflection guide and evidence-linked use plan that separates actual decisions from proposals.
Bring: Findings; Learning agenda; Decision record
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Connect learning to decisions and useConnected Task Kit
A checked coding and synthesis path using the existing qualitative prompt sequence and actual excerpts.
Bring: Transcripts; Qualitative findings
4 connected stages with named artifacts, checks and recovery.
Open Task Kit: Connect qualitative evidence to learningUse a single method directly or return to its related task kit. Downloads keep their actual format and source language. Earlier install packages are separate from current portable methods.
Draft a theory of change that explains the program pathway, tests its assumptions, and identifies practical measures and risks.
Prompt
English source
Build a logical framework with goals, outcomes, outputs, activities, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions.
Prompt
English source
Develop a monitoring, evaluation, and learning plan with indicators, data collection methods, timelines, and responsibilities.
Prompt
English source
Build an evaluation matrix linking evaluation questions to criteria, indicators, data sources, and methods.
Prompt
English source
Generate specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound indicators from your program objectives.
Prompt
English source
Document how each indicator is defined, measured, disaggregated and reported, with baseline and target status.
Prompt
English source
Develop learning questions, methods, and a plan for how your program will capture and use lessons.
Prompt
English source
Map out who needs what data, when, and how it will inform decisions at each level of your program.
Prompt
English source
Identify and categorize stakeholders by their interest, influence, and role in your M&E system.
Prompt
English source
Build a justified M&E budget with line items for data collection, staffing, analysis, and reporting.
Prompt
English source
Build a multi-level results chain showing how inputs lead to activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact.
Prompt
English source
Design channels for collecting, processing, and responding to feedback from the people your program serves.
Prompt
English source
Write a structured progress report for your donor with activities, results, challenges, and next steps.
Prompt
English source
Write up evaluation findings into a professional report with methodology, results, and recommendations.
Prompt
English source
Summarize a longer M&E document for decision-makers, preserving its verified content, caveats, and priorities within the required length.
Prompt
English source
Write a structured case study documenting a program success, challenge, or lesson learned.
Prompt
English source
Write terms of reference for commissioning an external evaluation, including scope, questions, and methodology.
Prompt
English source
Capture and organize lessons from program implementation into a structured document for future use.
Prompt
English source
Write the monitoring and evaluation section of a funding proposal with approach, indicators, and budget.
Prompt
English source
Plan how to share M&E findings with different audiences : donors, staff, communities, and partners.
Prompt
English source
Get structured feedback on your logframe's logic, indicator quality, assumptions, and completeness.
Prompt
English source
Find the most important gaps in an existing MEL plan and turn them into practical revisions.
Prompt
English source
Check the causal links and assumptions in a theory of change, with focused revisions and evidence questions.
Prompt
English source
Review indicator wording and measurement rules, preserve agreed definitions, and identify the fixes that matter most.
Prompt
English source
Test whether an evaluation design can answer its questions within the available evidence, resources and ethical limits.
Prompt
English source
Improve an existing instrument with item-level fixes, marked revisions and a focused pretest plan.
Prompt
English source
Strengthen a proposal MEAL section with evidence-linked fixes and clearly bounded funder-alignment advice.
Prompt
English source
Turn a report draft into a prioritized set of evidence checks, clear edits and stronger conclusions.
Prompt
English source
Analyze survey results with clear denominators, data-quality checks and conclusions the design can support.
Prompt
English source
Develop traceable themes from interview transcripts while preserving participants’ meaning and divergent views.
Prompt
English source
Build or refine a usable qualitative codebook with clear rules and transparent sample coding.
Prompt
English source
Condense a report into a readable summary while preserving its evidence, limitations and recommendations.
Prompt
English source
Create a precise, source-linked register of findings, values, recommendations and evidence gaps.
Prompt
English source
Compare two measurement rounds with explicit comparability checks and cautious interpretation of change.
Prompt
English source
Find supported trends, anomalies and relationships, with reproducible rules and useful follow-up checks.
Prompt
English source
Examine gender-related participation and outcomes without overstating disparities or exposing small groups.
Prompt
English source
Draft a household questionnaire that fits the decisions, respondents and safeguards of the proposed survey.
Prompt
English source
Create a focused interview guide with neutral questions, useful probes and realistic fieldwork safeguards.
Prompt
English source
Plan a focused group discussion with clear questions, inclusive moderation and honest privacy limits.
Prompt
English source
Turn an observation purpose into clear, usable criteria with consistent recording and rating rules.
Prompt
English source
Choose a defensible sampling approach with transparent assumptions, selection steps and limits on inference.
Prompt
English source
Plan a baseline study with clear measures, feasible fieldwork and a defensible basis for later comparison.
Prompt
English source
Plan a lean assessment around an urgent decision, the available time and the safest useful evidence.
Prompt
English source
Design a midterm evaluation that answers practical program decisions without promising unsupported impact findings.
Prompt
English source
Understand an M&E concept through a plain-language explanation, a practical example and a common mistake to avoid.
Prompt
English source
Compare evaluation options at the right level and identify what fits the actual decision and constraints.
Prompt
English source
Choose an evaluation methodology from the actual questions, evidence and constraints, with practical implementation advice.
Prompt
English source
Select focused, feasible indicators for the program results and decisions that matter.
Prompt
English source
Build a step-by-step analysis plan that matches the question, data and intended decisions.
Prompt
English source
Build an evidence-based contribution story while testing alternative explanations and acknowledging uncertainty.
Prompt
English source
Connect monitoring and learning to clear adaptation decisions, responsibilities and follow-up.
Prompt
English source
Create a practical after-action review template that helps a team learn from a completed activity.
Prompt
English source
Facilitate a focused review of evidence and turn useful learning into proposed program decisions.
Prompt
English source
Synthesize available evidence around a learning question and show what it supports for the next decision.
Prompt
English source
Compare continue, adapt and stop options using actual performance evidence, uncertainty and decision authority.
Prompt
English source
Turn supported program findings into a clear knowledge product for the readers who need them.
Prompt
English source
Capture a specific lesson with its evidence, transfer conditions and practical implications.
Prompt
English source
Plan meaningful story collection and transparent selection without turning selected stories into prevalence or impact estimates.
Prompt
English source
Design a practical learning event that helps participants apply evidence within their actual authority.
Prompt
English source
Plan how named users will apply evaluation evidence to real decisions, with appropriate sharing and follow-up.
Prompt
English source
Build a feasible GESI analysis framework around actual results, inclusion questions and safe evidence collection.
Prompt
English source
Plan age-appropriate Washington Group integration and accessible survey participation using the exact official materials.
Prompt
English source
Analyze program data through an intersectionality lens, examining how overlapping dimensions of identity (gender, age, disability, location, ethnicity) may relate to patterns of inclusion or exclusion.
Prompt
English source
Create an environmental and climate screening checklist for program monitoring, identifying environmental risks, mitigation measures, and compliance requirements across program activities.
Prompt
English source
Create climate-sensitive indicators and a climate risk monitoring framework that tracks both program contributions to climate resilience and exposure to climate-related risks.
Prompt
English source
Analyze program monitoring data through a conflict sensitivity and Do No Harm lens, identifying how the program may be interacting with conflict dynamics and recommending adjustments.
Prompt
English source
Create a protection mainstreaming monitoring framework with safeguarding indicators, complaint mechanism tracking, and protection risk analysis tools for humanitarian or development programs.
Prompt
English source
Create a Value for Money (VfM) assessment framework using the 4Es model (Economy, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Equity), with indicators, benchmarks, and reporting templates.
Prompt
English source
Compare supplied alternatives using auditable costs and results, with cost-effectiveness claims only when outcomes and comparisons support them.
Prompt
English source
Plan locally led M&E with negotiated decision and data rights, community-defined measures and resources suited to local partners.
Prompt
English source
Design an accountability framework linking accessible information, participation, safe feedback, response and decision rights.
Prompt
English source
Review an M&E plan or data collection tool for potential harm, ethical risks, safeguarding gaps, and unintended negative consequences for participants and communities.
Prompt
English source
Build a contribution analysis framework with contribution claims, evidence assessment criteria, and systematic testing of alternative explanations for observed outcomes.
Prompt
English source
Build a complete Most Significant Change (MSC) data collection and selection protocol, including story collection guides, selection criteria, and domain definitions.
Prompt
English source
Design an Outcome Mapping framework with boundary partners, progress markers, outcome journals, and strategy maps following the IDRC methodology.
Prompt
English source
Build an Outcome Harvesting protocol with outcome description templates, substantiation questions, verification procedures, and analysis frameworks.
Prompt
English source
Assess whether a quasi-experimental design is defensible, then plan the identification strategy, comparison and checks the evidence can support.
Prompt
English source
Analyze qualitative data using a structured coding framework that combines deductive codes from your theory of change with inductive codes emerging from the data, culminating in thematic analysis.
Prompt
English source
Create a Developmental Evaluation design for innovation or complex programming contexts, with real-time feedback loops, emergent learning questions, and adaptive evaluation architecture.
Prompt
English source
Design a participatory evaluation approach that engages beneficiaries and stakeholders as co-evaluators, with inclusive methods, power analysis, and capacity building components.
Prompt
English source
Analyze program data using a realist evaluation approach to develop and refine Context-Mechanism-Outcome (CMO) configurations that explain what works, for whom, and under what circumstances.
Prompt
English source
Create a process tracing protocol for causal inference in single-case or small-n evaluations, with hypothesis formulation, evidence tests, and Bayesian confidence updating.
Prompt
English source
Design a mixed-methods evaluation with integration points, sequencing decisions, a methods matrix, and a plan for combining quantitative and qualitative strands.
Prompt
English source
Create an evaluability assessment to determine if a program is ready for evaluation, examining program design clarity, data availability, stakeholder readiness, and feasibility constraints.
Prompt
English source
Build a stakeholder engagement plan for an evaluation: influence-interest mapping, tailored engagement methods, communication channels, and an implementation timeline.
Prompt
English source
Design an evaluation findings dissemination strategy with audience-specific products, communication channels, and a timeline for maximizing evaluation use.
Prompt
English source
Design a monitoring dashboard specification with KPIs, visualization types, update frequencies, user roles, and data flow architecture.
Prompt
English source
Create a data quality audit protocol with verification procedures, sampling strategy, scoring rubric, and corrective action framework for assessing M&E data reliability.
Prompt
English source
Draft a structured evaluation inception report outline covering methodology, workplan, evaluation matrix, risk assessment, team composition, and logistics.
Prompt
English source
Create an enumerator training agenda and manual outline for a data collection exercise, covering methodology, tools, ethics, practice sessions, and field protocols.
Prompt
English source
Create a field supervision checklist and data quality spot-check protocol for monitoring enumerator performance and data integrity during data collection.
Prompt
English source
Draft a professional Scope of Work for hiring an M&E consultant or evaluation firm, including background, deliverables, qualifications, timeline, and evaluation criteria.
Prompt
English source
Create a technical scoring matrix for evaluating proposals from evaluation firms or M&E consultants, with weighted criteria, scoring scales, and consensus procedures.
Prompt
English source
Create a data management plan covering collection protocols, storage, cleaning, analysis workflows, archiving, ethical safeguards, and data sharing agreements.
Prompt
English source
Translate M&E findings into a structured data storytelling brief with a narrative arc, key messages, supporting data points, and audience-specific framing.
Prompt
English source
Draft a structured outline for an M&E findings presentation deck with slide-by-slide content, visualization recommendations, and speaker notes.
Prompt
English source
Create structured content for an M&E infographic with headline stats, supporting data points, visual hierarchy, and layout guidance organized for a designer.
Prompt
English source
Draft a concise stakeholder brief from supplied findings, with clear limitations and recommendations suited to its audience and required format.
Prompt
English source
Analyze a dataset description and recommend the best chart types for each variable or comparison, with justification grounded in data visualization best practices.
Prompt
English source
Create a one-page results snapshot (factsheet) with headline indicators, progress-to-target tracking, and key achievements for a reporting period.
Prompt
English source
Draft a simplified community feedback report that presents M&E findings in plain language for beneficiary communities, with visual aids and actionable next steps.
Prompt
English source
Create a structured evidence brief that synthesizes findings across multiple evaluations or studies on a specific M&E topic, with strength-of-evidence ratings.
Prompt
English source
Create an M&E capacity assessment tool that evaluates organizational and individual M&E competencies across key domains, with scoring rubrics and gap analysis.
Prompt
English source
Create an M&E capacity building plan with learning objectives, activities, timeline, responsible parties, and success indicators linked to assessment findings.
Prompt
English source
Create a multi-day M&E training curriculum with detailed session plans, learning objectives, interactive exercises, and a complete materials list.
Prompt
English source
Design an M&E mentoring and coaching framework with competency milestones, structured session plans, progress tracking tools, and matching criteria.
Prompt
English source
Create a partner M&E capacity assessment and strengthening plan for sub-grantees or implementing partners, with risk-based tiering and tailored support packages.
Prompt
English source
Draft a facilitation guide for an M&E training session including icebreakers, group exercises, case studies, debrief questions, and time management tips.
Prompt
English source
Create an M&E staff competency framework with job families, proficiency levels, behavioral indicators, and development pathways for career progression.
Prompt
English source
Design a Community of Practice structure for M&E practitioners with meeting cadence, knowledge sharing protocols, engagement strategies, and sustainability plan.
Prompt
English source
Design a structured KoboToolbox or ODK-compatible survey form with question types, skip logic, validation rules, calculation fields, and deployment guidance.
Prompt
English source
Create a mobile and digital data collection protocol covering device management, data syncing, offline procedures, quality checks, and troubleshooting.
Prompt
English source
Create a remote monitoring plan for contexts where direct field access is limited, covering phone surveys, satellite imagery, third-party monitoring, and remote verification methods.
Prompt
English source
Design a real-time monitoring system with automated alerts, threshold triggers, escalation protocols, and dashboard specifications for timely program decision-making.
Prompt
English source
Create an ethics review or Institutional Review Board submission package with protocol summary, risk assessment, informed consent forms, and data protection measures.
Prompt
English source
Create an informed consent form template for M&E data collection that meets ethical standards, is written in plain language, and covers voluntary participation, confidentiality, risks, and data use.
Prompt
English source
Create a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) for an M&E data system covering data flows, privacy risks, legal basis, and mitigation measures aligned with GDPR and humanitarian data protection standards.
Prompt
English source
Review an M&E data collection plan for ethical compliance against UNEG ethical guidelines, covering informed consent, do no harm, confidentiality, and vulnerable population protections.
Prompt
English source
Design an M&E framework for a health program integrated with HMIS and DHIS2 data systems, WHO and SPHERE benchmarks, and sector-standard health indicators.
Prompt
English source
Design a health household survey instrument using validated question modules for immunization, nutrition, WASH, and maternal health, with sampling strategy and field protocols.
Prompt
English source
Analyze HMIS or DHIS2 routine health data to identify trends, coverage gaps, performance outliers, and actionable recommendations for program improvement.
Prompt
English source
Design an M&E framework for an education program aligned to INEE Minimum Standards, with indicators for access, retention, learning outcomes, and education system strengthening.
Prompt
English source
Design a literacy, numeracy or combined assessment blueprint using the actual curriculum, learners and authoritative assessment materials.
Prompt
English source
Design monitoring for the WASH components actually provided, with defensible service classifications and water-quality evidence.
Prompt
English source
Design a household WASH survey around the actual decision and setting, using authorized modules and supported service classifications.
Prompt
English source
Design monitoring for actual food security and livelihoods activities using sourced instruments and clearly bounded classifications.
Prompt
English source
Analyze supplied food-security and market evidence, preserving measurement limits and separating it from official IPC classification.
Prompt
English source
Design a service-specific protection monitoring framework using minimal authorized data and specialist-approved safeguards.
Prompt
English source
Compare evaluation approaches and get a recommendation for which method best fits your program context, resources, and evidence needs.
Prompt
English source
Review a dataset or data collection process for quality issues across five dimensions: completeness, accuracy, consistency, timeliness, and validity.
Prompt
English source
Scan a donor RFP or solicitation for every M&E-related instruction (compliance requirements, mandatory indicators, reporting expectations, evaluation commitments) so nothing is missed during proposal drafting.
Prompt
English source
Assess whether your organization should pursue an RFP based on M&E fit: indicator feasibility, data collection context, capacity alignment, and risk flags surfaced in the M&E requirements. Produces a go, no-go, or go-with-conditions recommendation with caveats.
Prompt
English source
Reason about what competing organizations are likely to propose on M&E for this RFP based on their public track records and sector norms, so your proposal differentiates where it matters and converges where convergence is the stronger move.
Prompt
English source
Develop an M&E capture plan covering team structure, level of effort, subcontractor and consortium needs, data collection rounds with approximate budgets, and the open decision points that will shape the final MEL plan.
Prompt
English source
Draft an M&E staffing plan for a proposal that specifies roles, level of effort (LOE), reporting lines, qualifications, and lifecycle coverage, sized to the program's scale and MEL plan workload with a defensible cost as a percentage of the program budget.
Prompt
English source
Draft an activity-based M&E budget narrative using supplied quantities, rates, and proposal requirements, with unpriced items and assumptions made clear.
Prompt
English source
Draft a proposal-ready data collection plan specifying methods, schedule, sampling (with design effect and non-response buffer), responsibilities, and instruments for every indicator in the MEL plan, plus an explicit digital-vs-paper decision.
Prompt
English source
Transform an existing program narrative into a structured theory of change with causal pathway, intermediate outcomes, and testable assumptions. Useful when the program description is written but the ToC is not yet formalized.
Prompt
English source
Operationalize a finalized theory of change into a 4x4 logframe matrix with goal, outcomes, outputs, and activities as rows and narrative, indicators, means of verification, and assumptions as columns, aligned to donor template expectations.
Prompt
English source
Given a proposal due in 48-72 hours, produce an hour-by-hour workflow that sequences M&E section drafting: RFP extraction, ToC, logframe, MEL plan, staffing, budget narrative. Routes tasks through AI-assisted drafting, human review, and compliance checks.
Prompt
English source
Conduct a red-team review of a draft proposal M&E section, identifying gaps, weaknesses, donor-compliance risks, and credibility problems a reviewer would flag. Purpose is to surface issues before submission, not to polish phrasing.
Prompt
English source
Scrutinize an M&E budget for proposal submission. Check budget as percentage of program, itemization completeness, staffing LOE match to MEL plan workload, and flags for donor reviewers.
Prompt
English source
Capture specific lessons from the supplied project or milestone and connect them to future decisions.
Prompt
English source
Design an after-action review for the supplied completed activity, with practical facilitation and unconfirmed follow-up commitments.
Prompt
English source
Design a prioritized learning agenda for the actual program duration and geography, organized around decisions.
Prompt
English source
Design a reflection workshop around the team’s recent evidence and next decisions, fitted to the available time.
Prompt
English source
Synthesize evidence-based patterns and contrasts across the supplied portfolio without erasing context or overstating confidence.
Prompt
English source
Design a lightweight knowledge-management strategy around actual workflows, users, permissions and staff capacity.
Prompt
English source
Connect routine program monitoring to an operational learning loop with meaningful signals, decision rights and follow-up.
Prompt
English source
Distill policy-relevant insights from the supplied evidence for the stated topic, geography and policy decision.
Prompt
English source
Assess whether documented prior lessons changed current program design and practice, using observable uptake evidence.
Prompt
English source
Design a forward-looking pause-and-reflect session for the actual team, evidence and upcoming implementation decisions.
Prompt
English source
Adapt verified program lessons for donor, peer and internal readers without changing their evidence or certainty.
Prompt
English source
Document learning from program underperformance honestly, without blame and with explanations bounded by evidence.
Prompt
English source
Find the most important evidence, reasoning and reporting problems in an evaluation draft, with practical revision advice.
Prompt
English source
Review the supplied MEL plan draft for evidence-based completeness, feasible operations and conditions for the next review.
Prompt
English source
Review a donor progress report for supported claims, consistent figures and documented reporting obligations before submission.
Prompt
English source
Review the supplied survey instrument’s items, routing and safeguards, with clearly bounded field-readiness advice.
Prompt
English source
Review the supplied logframe’s causal logic, measures and verification against actual program evidence and requirements.
Prompt
English source
Review the evaluation ToR for clear purpose, defensible scope, feasible delivery and conditions still to resolve before issue.
Prompt
English source
Review the indicator set’s definitions, result coverage, duplication and feasible measurement against actual requirements.
Prompt
English source
Review the inception report’s design and safeguards, identifying conditions for the responsible owner before fieldwork.
Prompt
English source
Review major report findings against their actual evidence, contrary cases and limits on inference.
Prompt
English source
Review recommendations for clear actions, evidence links, feasible ownership and implementation tradeoffs.
Prompt
English source
Design an evaluation matrix showing how the actual priority questions will be answered and judged.
Prompt
English source
Design a sampling plan with defensible selection, size or qualitative scope, field procedures and inference limits.
Prompt
English source
Design a monitoring system that connects actual indicators and capture processes to useful, authorized decisions.
Prompt
English source
Describe the actual or proposed data flow with clear actors, source records, transfers, controls and use points.
Prompt
English source
Design a results framework for the supplied program scope, distinguishing intended changes from achieved results.
Prompt
English source
Review whether triangulation serves the evaluation questions and makes corroboration, differences and limitations visible.
Prompt
English source
Review whether the sample rationale supports the actual quantitative or qualitative analyses and is feasible in practice.
Prompt
English source
Review whether limitations are specific, supported and connected to the findings they constrain.
Prompt
English source
Review whether an analysis plan makes the question-to-method choices and implementation steps explicit.
Prompt
English source
Review whether a mixed-methods plan links its strands substantively and handles disagreement transparently.
Prompt
English source
Review stakeholder engagement for relevant voices, safe participation, meaningful influence and accountable follow-through.
Prompt
English source
Review a sampling frame’s source, coverage, currency and cleaning before selection, separately from sample-size justification.
Prompt
English source
Draft an approach-appropriate qualitative coding frame, using provisional notes and reflexive memos when a fixed codebook does not fit.
Prompt
English source
Draft an adaptive-management plan linking actual monitoring triggers to authorized decisions and documented follow-up.
Prompt
English source
Design an instrument pilot that can reveal priority problems and support a later authorized readiness decision.
Prompt
English source
Review each indicator against SMART using its definition, associated target and intended measurement context.
Prompt
English source
Review baseline and target evidence, direction, feasibility and milestone logic without inventing values or universal trajectories.
Prompt
English source
Review indicator sources and methods for specificity, fit, feasibility and decision-relevant collection frequency.
Prompt
English source
Review only an indicator statement’s wording, using linked definitions to clarify units or comparators without expanding the task.
Prompt
English source
Review the design of a composite or index indicator (component selection, weighting, aggregation, missing-data, interpretability).
Prompt
English source
Review whether indicators are correctly classified at output, outcome, or impact levels with attribution-distance and time-frame checks.
Prompt
English source
Review whether an indicator set aligns with the required donor framework (coverage, mapping, definition alignment, disaggregation, reporting readiness).
Prompt
English source
Review the justification for a proxy indicator (rationale, link defense, bounded validity, triangulation, limitations).
Prompt
English source
Review a disaggregation plan across the data pipeline (planning, collection, analysis, reporting, use).
Prompt
English source
Review an executive summary of an evaluation or research report for stand-alone value, key-finding salience, coverage, plain language, and length discipline.
Prompt
English source
Review the findings section of an evaluation, monitoring, or research report for source citation, triangulation visibility, qual-quant integration, inference strength, and contrary evidence.
Prompt
English source
Review the recommendations section of a report for specificity, ownership, timeframe, resource realism, and finding linkage.
Prompt
English source
Review the methods section of an evaluation or research report for design justification, data collection detail, analysis approach, QA, and reproducibility.
Prompt
English source
Review the traceability and logic from findings to recommendations in a report.
Prompt
English source
Review a needs assessment report for scope coverage, methods, data quality, prioritization logic, and use-readiness.
Prompt
English source
Review a report (or section) for plain-language accessibility: reading level, jargon, structure, visuals, and audience fit.
Prompt
English source
Review the theory-based evaluation findings (ToC restatement, per-link evidence, assumption verification, alternatives, ToC revision recs).
Prompt
English source
Review a contribution analysis section for story construction, counterfactual reasoning, co-factor acknowledgment, calibrated language, and reader verifiability.
Prompt
English source
Review the ethical standards in a methodology, evaluation design, or research protocol.
Prompt
English source
Review the gender equality and social inclusion treatment in a MEL plan, evaluation methodology, or report.
Prompt
English source
Review how deeply gender is integrated into an M&E design beyond sex-disaggregation.
Prompt
English source
Review whether an M&E design treats identity intersections (gender, disability, age, ethnicity) as distinct analytic categories.
Prompt
English source
Review evaluator self-reflection on bias, perspective, and positionality in qualitative methods.
Prompt
English source
Review the protections for vulnerable populations in an evaluation or research design.
Prompt
English source
Review data storage and privacy practices in a methodology or data management plan.
Prompt
English source
Draft a do-no-harm risk identification and mitigation protocol for an evaluation or research activity.
Prompt
English source
Draft an informed consent form or script with information completeness, comprehension aids, voluntariness, confidentiality, and special-population accommodations.
Prompt
English source
Draft safeguarding procedures including training, reporting channels, escalation chain, response protocols, and audit trail.
Prompt
English source
Review survey questions for clarity, neutrality, single-concept, specificity, and reading-level fit.
Prompt
English source
Review response options (Likert scales, response categories) for exhaustiveness, mutual exclusivity, balance, clarity, and don't-know handling.
Prompt
English source
Review a translated survey for semantic fidelity, cultural adaptation, back-translation evidence, response-option consistency, and field-testing.
Prompt
English source
Review a focus group discussion guide for structure, opening/closing, probe quality, sensitivity handling, and facilitator notes.
Prompt
English source
Review probe questions in a focus group discussion guide for depth, neutrality, sequencing, coverage, and facilitation guidance.
Prompt
English source
Review a key informant interview guide for structure, question quality, sensitivity, sequencing, and facilitator notes.
Prompt
English source
Review the question design in a key informant interview guide for openness, depth trajectory, informant tailoring, specificity, and time discipline.
Prompt
English source
Review the protocol scaffolding (consent, recording, transcription, data handling) for FGD or KII data collection.
Prompt
English source
Review a structured observation checklist for observability, inter-rater clarity, field usability, coverage, and open-notes space.
Prompt
English source
Review the data flow diagram inside a MEL plan for completeness, role clarity, system specification, quality gates, and feasibility.
Prompt
English source
Review the learning questions section of a MEL plan for strategic relevance, answerability, decision linkage, scope, and operationalization.
Prompt
English source
Review the assumptions section of a Theory of Change for explicit statement, causal-link coverage, plausibility, testability, and prioritization.
Prompt
English source
Review whether a Theory of Change pathway covers full causal logic from inputs to impact without gaps.
Prompt
English source
Review the causal logic of a Theory of Change for plausibility, evidence base, and link integrity.
Prompt
English source
Review the roles and responsibilities matrix inside a MEL plan for function coverage, position specificity, RACI discipline, escalation path, and staffing feasibility.
Prompt
English source
Review whether indicators in a MEL plan are linked to specific decisions and learning needs.
Prompt
English source
Review the assumptions column of a logframe for coverage of levels, specificity, causal reasoning, testability, and risk differentiation.
Prompt
English source
Review the means of verification column of a logframe for source specificity, method appropriateness, frequency, responsibility, and feasibility.
Prompt
English source
Review the evaluation questions section of a ToR for scope coherence, answerability, decision relevance, criterion coverage, and right-sizing.
Prompt
English source
Review the budget in an evaluation ToR against scope and methods for cost alignment, breakdown specificity, field-cost realism, hidden costs, and contingency.
Prompt
English source
Review the governance and oversight structure for an evaluation (steering committee, reference group, decision rights, COI, escalation).
Prompt
English source
Review the stakeholder engagement plan in an inception report for identification, mode specificity, timing, feedback, and accountability.
Prompt
English source
Review the financial commentary in a progress report (budget vs actuals plus variance explanation, burn rate, reallocation logic).
Prompt
English source
Review the charts and figures in a report for chart-type appropriateness, labeling completeness, honest scaling, accessibility, and caption quality.
Prompt
English source
Design the evaluator selection criteria and scoring matrix for an evaluation ToR (expertise specificity, experience calibration, scoring transparency, diversity, fairness).
Prompt
English source
Review the workplan section of an evaluation inception report for phase decomposition, milestone definition, dependency mapping, buffer time, and resource loading.
Prompt
English source
Build a source-by-source adjudication ledger for disputed monitoring values, with verification requests and traceable correction proposals.
Prompt
English source
Separate contacts, within-period people and cumulative unique people across partners or periods using documented overlap evidence and explicit limitations.
Prompt
English source
Map old and new indicator definitions and plan recoding, bridge measurement or an explicit series break.
Prompt
English source
Reconcile final survey dispositions, diagnose response imbalance and assess defensible adjustment and sensitivity options.
Prompt
English source
Trace the baseline cohort through follow-up, assess selective loss, and define the population supported by paired-change analysis.
Prompt
English source
Map missing-value codes and patterns to defensible treatment choices, assumptions, sensitivity checks and a traceable decision log.
Prompt
English source
Assess historical, retrospective and prospective measurement options when preintervention data were not collected.
Prompt
English source
Check whether an existing dataset can support a new question, with claim-specific fit, provenance, coverage and use conditions.
Prompt
English source
Specify permitted matching rules, ambiguous-link handling and error checks from safe source schemas before any record linkage.
Prompt
English source
Prepare item-specific neutral probes and a session script to investigate comprehension, recall, judgment and response choices.
Prompt
English source
Plan source-fidelity, uncertainty, translation and safe-label checks before qualitative coding.
Prompt
English source
Trace existing outputs to source versions, calculations, environment details and actual verification evidence for a successor analyst.
Prompt
English source
Score how well a deliverable links its data, indicators, or findings to specific decisions across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess MEL plans, indicator reference sheets, monitoring briefs, evaluation reports, learning agendas, and any deliverable that should drive action rather than only describe state.
Rubric
English source
Score the assumptions column of a logframe for completeness, testability, and link to causal logic. Paste the logframe to assess whether assumptions are doing their analytic job. Use this for the logframe or results framework column; for the assumptions section of a Theory of Change narrative see toc-assumptions-quality.
Rubric
English source
Score the means of verification (MoV) column of a logframe for source specificity, method appropriateness, and frequency clarity. Paste the logframe to assess whether the MoV column will guide data collection.
Rubric
English source
Score a logframe across five dimensions using AI. Paste your logframe into the prompt to get a structured quality assessment with dimension scores, evidence citations, and priority revisions.
Rubric
English source
Score the data flow diagram inside a MEL plan for completeness, role clarity, and feasibility. Paste the diagram (or its narrative description) to get a structured assessment with revision priorities.
Rubric
English source
Score the learning questions section of a MEL plan for strategic relevance, answerability, and decision-linkage. Paste the section to assess whether questions will drive learning that informs program adaptation.
Rubric
English source
Score a Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning plan across five dimensions using AI. Paste your MEL plan to get a structured quality assessment with dimension scores, evidence citations, and priority revisions.
Rubric
English source
Score the roles and responsibilities matrix inside a MEL plan for completeness, specificity, and feasibility. Paste the matrix to assess whether every M&E function has named ownership.
Rubric
English source
Score a Theory of Change across five dimensions using AI. Paste your ToC narrative or diagram description to get a structured quality assessment with dimension scores, evidence citations, and priority revisions.
Rubric
English source
Score the causal logic of a theory of change in five dimensions using AI. This is a focused component rubric for the causal pathway only, useful when a ToC is embedded in a logframe, MEL plan, contribution analysis, or adaptive management memo. For a holistic assessment of a complete ToC document including stakeholder engagement and presentation, use the theory-of-change-assessment rubric instead.
Rubric
English source
Score the assumptions section of a Theory of Change. Paste the assumptions to assess whether they are stated explicitly, testable, prioritized, and connected to specific causal links. Use this for the ToC narrative assumptions section; for the assumptions column of a logframe or results framework see logframe-assumptions-column.
Rubric
English source
Score whether the causal pathway in a Theory of Change covers the full logic from inputs to impact. Paste the ToC to assess gaps, jumps, and missing intermediate steps.
Rubric
English source
Score the baseline values and targets attached to indicators for plausibility, evidence basis, and ambition calibration. Paste the indicator with baseline and target to assess whether the numbers are defensible.
Rubric
English source
Score the design of a composite or index indicator for component selection, weighting logic, and transparency. Paste the indicator definition to assess construction quality.
Rubric
English source
Score data disaggregation quality across the full data pipeline (planning, collection, analysis, reporting, use) using AI. Applies to MEL plans, indicator frameworks, surveys, evaluation reports, donor progress reports, and monitoring briefs where data should be disaggregated.
Rubric
English source
Review alignment against supplied, applicable funding-agreement indicator definitions and reporting instructions. Unverified obligations remain unresolved.
Rubric
English source
Score any indicator or set of indicators in any M&E document (logframes, MEL plans, PIRS, indicator reference sheets, results frameworks) for SMART criteria, definition clarity, disaggregation, source documentation, and indicator family coherence using AI.
Rubric
English source
Score whether the means of verification (data source plus collection method) named for each indicator are appropriate, specific, and feasible. Paste the indicator with its MoV to assess source-method fit.
Rubric
English source
Score just the wording of an indicator statement for clarity, precision, and unit specification. Paste the indicator statement to get a focused diagnostic on language quality.
Rubric
English source
Score whether indicators are correctly classified at output, outcome, or impact levels. Paste indicators to identify mis-classifications that obscure the results chain.
Rubric
English source
Score the justification for using proxy indicators. Paste the proxy indicator and its rationale to assess whether the proxy-to-outcome link is defended and bounded.
Rubric
English source
Score one or more indicators specifically against the SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound). Paste the indicator(s) to get a per-criterion assessment with revision suggestions.
Rubric
English source
Score a focus group discussion guide across five dimensions using AI. Paste your guide to get a scored assessment of question design, structure, ethics, research alignment, and facilitator guidance. Use when reviewing an FGD guide as a standalone document or embedded in an inception report, evaluation design, or needs assessment.
Rubric
English source
Score the probe questions in a Focus Group Discussion guide for depth, neutrality, and sequencing. Paste the FGD guide to assess whether probes will surface meaningful insight.
Rubric
English source
Score a focus group discussion or key informant interview protocol across five dimensions using AI. Paste your protocol to get a structured assessment of question design, structure, ethics, alignment, and facilitator guidance before fielding.
Rubric
English source
Score a key informant interview guide across five dimensions using AI. Paste your guide to get a scored assessment of question design, structure, ethics, research alignment, and interviewer guidance. Use when reviewing a KII guide as a standalone document or embedded in an inception report, evaluation design, or needs assessment.
Rubric
English source
Score the question design in a Key Informant Interview guide for depth, openness, and tailoring to informant type. Paste the KII guide to assess whether questions will surface expert insight.
Rubric
English source
Score the design of a structured observation checklist for observability, inter-rater consistency, and field-usability. Paste the checklist to assess whether observations will be reliable.
Rubric
English source
Score a sampling design across five dimensions using AI. Paste your sampling plan to get a structured assessment of strategy, size, selection, coverage, and replicability before fielding begins.
Rubric
English source
Use AI to review a survey questionnaire before field deployment. Get proposed corrections and a prioritized revision list for review and pilot testing.
Rubric
English source
Score the wording of survey questions for clarity, neutrality, and freedom from common biases (leading, double-barreled, ambiguous). Paste your survey questions to get a per-question diagnostic.
Rubric
English source
Score the response options in a survey for exhaustiveness, mutual exclusivity, and scale design. Paste the survey to assess whether response choices will yield clean, analyzable data.
Rubric
English source
Score the quality of a translated survey instrument for fidelity, cultural appropriateness, and back-translation evidence. Paste source and translation to assess equivalence.
Rubric
English source
Score an evaluation inception report across five dimensions using AI. Paste your draft to get a structured assessment of refined questions, methodology, tools, analysis plan, and risk/ethics provisions to identify documentation gaps, revision priorities, and conditions requiring accountable review.
Rubric
English source
Score the governance and oversight structure for an evaluation. Paste the section to assess whether the management arrangements will sustain the evaluation through delivery.
Rubric
English source
Score an evaluation Terms of Reference across five dimensions using AI. Paste your draft ToR to get a structured assessment of scope, questions, methodology, deliverables, and ethics before procurement.
Rubric
English source
Score the evaluator selection criteria and scoring matrix in a ToR. Paste the section to assess whether the criteria will identify the right candidate.
Rubric
English source
Score the stakeholder engagement plan section of an inception report. Paste the section to assess whether stakeholders will be appropriately engaged across the evaluation.
Rubric
English source
Score the workplan section of an evaluation inception report for timeline realism, milestone clarity, and dependency mapping. Paste the workplan to assess whether the evaluation will deliver on time.
Rubric
English source
Score whether the budget in an evaluation Terms of Reference is fit for the scope and methods. Paste the budget and scope sections to assess feasibility.
Rubric
English source
Score the evaluation questions in a Terms of Reference for scope, answerability, and decision-relevance. Paste the questions section to assess whether they will produce useful findings.
Rubric
English source
Score the adaptive management plan that operationalizes how findings flow back to program decisions. Paste the section to assess whether learning will actually drive program change.
Rubric
English source
Score the analysis plan section of any document where one is required, including MEL plans, inception reports, evaluation reports, contribution analyses, and needs assessments. Use to confirm the plan maps to questions, names methods specifically, and includes triangulation and quality checks.
Rubric
English source
Score the documentation of instrument pilot testing (what was piloted, with whom, what was revised). Paste the pilot report to assess documentation; instrument readiness is a separate evidenced decision.
Rubric
English source
Score the methodology limitations disclosure in a report for honesty, completeness, and impact-on-findings explanation. Paste the limitations section to assess credibility.
Rubric
English source
Score the methodological rigor of an evaluation, study, or assessment across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess MEL plans, evaluation ToRs, inception reports, evaluation reports, contribution analyses, needs assessments, sampling plans, and any document where methodology choices need justification and quality safeguards.
Rubric
English source
Score how qualitative and quantitative data are integrated in a mixed-methods design. Paste the methodology or analysis section to assess whether integration is substantive (not parallel).
Rubric
English source
Score a qualitative coding frame (codebook) for structure, mutual exclusivity, and grounded-theory hygiene. Paste the codebook to assess whether it will yield consistent coding.
Rubric
English source
Draft, review, and improve a quasi-experimental evaluation with design-specific assumptions, evidence limits, and safeguards against unsupported causal claims.
Rubric
English source
Score the sample size and selection rationale in a methodology or sampling plan. Paste the sampling section to assess whether the sample will support the intended analyses. Use this for sample-size justification and selection rationale (analytic purpose, power, method fit, feasibility); for the sampling frame itself (the list or source the sample is drawn from) see sampling-frame-quality.
Rubric
English source
Score the sampling frame itself (the list or source from which the sample is drawn) for completeness, currency, and coverage. Separate from sample-size justification. Use this for the frame itself (coverage, currency, cleaning, frame limitations); for the sample-size justification and selection rationale see sample-justification.
Rubric
English source
Score the quality of stakeholder engagement across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess MEL plans, evaluation ToRs, inception reports, evaluation reports, learning agendas, contribution analyses, and any deliverable involving stakeholder consultation.
Rubric
English source
Score the triangulation approach across methods, sources, and perspectives in an evaluation or analysis plan. Paste the relevant section to assess whether findings will be defensibly cross-corroborated. Use this for the triangulation approach itself (method, source, investigator, conflict resolution, reporting visibility); for per-finding evidentiary review in a report see findings-evidence-strength.
Rubric
English source
Create, review and improve a value for money assessment with explicit cost boundaries, credible results, equity tradeoffs and proportionate conclusions.
Rubric
English source
Score the financial commentary in a progress report (budget vs actuals plus variance explanation). Paste the narrative section to assess transparency and decision-readiness.
Rubric
English source
Score a formal contribution analysis write-up. Paste the section to assess whether contribution claims are appropriately bounded by evidence and counterfactual reasoning.
Rubric
English source
Score the charts and data visualizations in a report for chart-type appropriateness, labeling, and integrity. Paste the report (with viz descriptions if no images) to assess whether visuals communicate cleanly.
Rubric
English source
Score a donor progress report across five dimensions using AI. Paste your narrative report to get a structured quality assessment with dimension scores, evidence citations, and priority revisions before submission.
Rubric
English source
Use AI to score an evaluation report across five quality dimensions. Get a structured verdict with evidence citations and a revision brief before accepting or publishing the report.
Rubric
English source
Score the executive summary of an evaluation report for completeness, key-finding clarity, and stand-alone value. Paste the executive summary to assess whether it can serve as a decision-maker's brief.
Rubric
English source
Score whether each finding in a report is properly evidenced. Paste the findings section to assess source citation, triangulation, and inference strength per finding. Use this for per-finding evidentiary review in a report; for scoring the triangulation approach itself (method, source, investigator, conflict resolution) see triangulation-strength.
Rubric
English source
Score how well findings translate into actionable recommendations across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess evaluation reports, donor progress reports, contribution analyses, learning briefs, monitoring briefs, case studies, and any document where findings should drive recommendations.
Rubric
English source
Score the lessons learned section of a report for actionability, generalizability, and evidence basis. Paste the lessons learned to assess whether they will be useful beyond this program.
Rubric
English source
Score the methods section of an evaluation report for transparency, completeness, and replicability. Paste the methods section to assess whether a reader could reconstruct the study.
Rubric
English source
Score a needs assessment report across five dimensions using AI. Paste your report to get a structured assessment of problem definition, methodology, needs identification, population voice, and recommendations before program design.
Rubric
English source
Draft, review, and improve a purpose-specific DQA plan or assessment while separating verified findings, evidence gaps, and operational limits.
Rubric
English source
Score the plain language quality and accessibility of any M&E deliverable across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess donor reports, monitoring briefs, learning briefs, adaptive memos, evaluation reports, case studies, and any deliverable communicated to a non-specialist audience.
Rubric
English source
Score recommendations in a report for clarity, ownership, and actionability. Paste the recommendations section to assess whether decision-makers can act on them.
Rubric
English source
Score the explicit ToC test in the findings narrative. Paste the section to assess whether the theory of change has actually been evaluated, not just used as a planning artifact.
Rubric
English source
Score the data storage and privacy practices in a methodology or data management plan. Paste the relevant section to assess whether respondent data will be protected end-to-end.
Rubric
English source
Score the do-no-harm risk identification and mitigation protocol for an evaluation, monitoring, or research activity. Paste the protocol to assess coverage of physical, psychological, social, and economic risks. Use this for the substantive risk-and-mitigation analysis; for the organizational machinery (training, reporting channels, escalation chain, audit trail) see safeguarding-procedures.
Rubric
English source
Score the ethical standards of an M&E or research deliverable across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess MEL plans, evaluation ToRs, inception reports, surveys, FGD/KII protocols, sampling plans, evaluation reports, case studies, and any deliverable involving human participants or sensitive data.
Rubric
English source
Score any M&E deliverable for GESI integration across five dimensions using AI. Use to assess MEL plans, evaluation ToRs, inception reports, indicator frameworks, surveys, FGD/KII protocols, and evaluation reports.
Rubric
English source
Score how deeply gender is integrated into an M&E design (beyond disaggregation). Paste the gender-relevant sections to assess whether gender analysis informs methods, interpretation, and use. Use this for the depth of gender as a single analytic lens; for multi-axis identity analysis (gender x disability x age x ethnicity) see intersectionality-analysis.
Rubric
English source
Score the informed consent form or process for clarity, comprehension, and voluntariness. Paste the consent script or form to assess whether respondents will truly give informed consent.
Rubric
English source
Score whether the M&E design treats identity intersections (gender, disability, age, ethnicity) as distinct analytic categories, beyond single-axis disaggregation. Use this for multi-axis intersectional analysis; for the depth of gender as a single analytic lens (methods, interpretation, use) see gender-integration-depth.
Rubric
English source
Score evaluator self-reflection on bias, perspective, and positionality. Paste the relevant section to assess whether qualitative findings are grounded in reflexive practice.
Rubric
English source
Score the safeguarding procedures in a research or evaluation design. Goes deeper than do-no-harm: training, escalation chain, response protocol, audit trail. Use this for the organizational machinery of safeguarding; for substantive risk identification and mitigation see do-no-harm-protocol.
Rubric
English source
Score the protections for vulnerable populations (children, refugees, survivors, people with disabilities, etc.) in an evaluation or research design. Paste the relevant section to assess safeguards.
Rubric
English source
Prioritize answerable questions tied to the decisions an evaluation must support.
Skill
English source
Match evaluation questions to feasible evidence, methods and limitations.
Skill
English source
Draft a source-linked TOR with feasible scope and unresolved decisions visible.
Skill
English source
Define each indicator so people can collect and interpret it consistently.
Skill
English source
Calculate collection workload and compare practical simplification options.
Skill
English source
Build a practical plan and check that definitions, responsibilities and use agree.
Skill
English source
Reconcile reported results and identify which comparisons the evidence supports.
Skill
English source
Turn supported findings into a traceable proposed management response.
Skill
English source
Compare a theory of change, logframe and indicators for gaps and conflicts, keeping source versions visible.
Skill
English source
Draft a sampling plan with visible calculations, or check the sizing and selection of an existing one.
Skill
English source
Plan a risk-based data quality assessment with proposed checks, owners and timing.
Skill
English source
Plan baseline measurement for every indicator, or check a baseline against the framework, without inventing starting values.
Skill
English source
Check results logic, indicators, assumptions and means of verification.
Skill
English source
Examine the results chain, causal assumptions and evidence behind it.
Skill
English source
Assess definitions, SMART and CREAM qualities, disaggregation and measurability.
Skill
English source
Identify gaps and inconsistencies in a measurement and learning plan.
Skill
English source
Review the approach, evaluation arrangements, resources and staffing in a proposal.
Skill
English source
Review commissioning scope, methodological feasibility, ethics and deliverables.
Skill
English source
Check questionnaire quality, structure and data collection feasibility.
Skill
English source
Review the sampling approach, assumptions, frame and calculations.
Skill
English source
Review baseline evidence, indicator coverage and the basis for later comparison.
Skill
English source
Check reported numbers, explanations and evidence-linked conclusions.
Skill
English source
Review data quality evidence, verification and proposed improvement actions.
Skill
English source
Review design, evidence, findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Skill
English source
Move from evaluation decisions to questions, methods and a revised TOR.
Workflow
English source
Move from indicator review to reference sheets and a feasible M&E plan.
Workflow
English source
Move from checked results to a revised report and proposed actions.
Workflow
English source
Choose a task, copy one complete stage to your assistant, check the output, and resume from retained artifacts. Claude packages are optional.
Guide
English source
One fictional program taken through evaluation questions, a feasible measurement plan and a report with proposed actions.
Guide
English source
How to credit M&E Studio when you share or adapt these guides and worked files, and how the plugin license differs from the guides.
Guide
English source
The fictional source pack for the worked project: a garden course, its attendance register and its feedback form, used by all three jobs.
Guide
English source
Full hand-written example outputs for the worked project, from questions and matrix to the evidence report. They were not produced by a skill run.
Guide
English source
A short template to fill in when you pause a skill or workflow, so you can resume in a new session from the actual artifacts and decisions so far.
Guide
English source
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · xlsx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Existing guided template. Adapt it to the actual task and requirements.
Download
English source · docx
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
English source · pdf · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · xlsx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · xlsx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · xlsx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · pdf · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · xlsx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · pdf · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · pdf · Fictional example or template
Fictional worked material. Adapt its structure; do not treat example figures as program evidence.
Download
Check source language · docx · Fictional example or template
