Build a panel template library the school keeps

At the last Science panel meeting of the summer term, the outgoing coordinator opened the shared drive folder labelled "AI prompts" and counted fourteen files called "final", "final v2" or "use this one". The incoming teacher pointed at "Secondary 3 graph analysis draft" and asked which marking rubric it matched. Nobody answered without opening five documents. She said: "We wrote good prompts. We never agreed where the good copy lives."

A template library fixes trust and versioning, not folder hygiene. This is lesson 17 in module four of the prompt-engineering course. When output is still wrong after you pick the right template, lesson 18 walks six checks in order.

---

Panel floor and teacher parameters

Inside every template, role, task and output lines may shift for [year level], [text type] or [number of comments]. The constraints line is the panel floor — do not rewrite pupil work, flag uncertainty for teacher verification, never output personal data. When one teacher trims that line for speed, safety and quality diverge across classes. Every constraints line in earlier lessons is a concrete instance of that floor.

Colleagues avoid your template not because they dislike AI but because opening it leaves three questions unanswered: Is this the current version? Which school document does it follow? What already goes wrong with it? Metadata answers all three before anyone runs a prompt.

Metadata that earns trust

Attach this block to every template in the library:

Template ID: SCI-T04
Template name: Secondary 3 graph interpretation first-pass feedback
Panel: Science
Year levels: Secondary 3
Purpose: two-sentence feedback against the panel graph rubric, for teacher review before reports
Version: v1.1
Last revised: 2026-09-12
Revised by: panel head
Linked document: Science Marking Rubric 2026, data-handling section
Known limitations: weak on hand-drawn axes; unreliable on unit conversion in word problems
Teacher may adjust: pupil reference, item number, number of comment sentences
Do not change: anything in the constraints line

Known limitations save the next user from the same hole. Write them back after debugging or a week of classroom use — not when you first upload.

Teachers need six fields filled before they trust a list: purpose, year levels, version, linked document, known limitations, and what may versus may not be edited. A blank limitations line reads as "nobody has tried this yet", which is worse than admitting a weakness.

Four-part naming

SCI-T04-v1.1 — subject code, task type (T marking, W worksheets, L lesson planning, Q questions, N notices), sequence number, version. A flat list groups itself: all SCI-T templates sit together, versions sort numerically, and nobody needs a nested folder tree to find the live copy.

Publish rules matter as much as spelling: only the panel head increments the version digit after review. Teachers save drafts with their initials in brackets if they must experiment — never overwrite the published filename.

Libraries rot when nobody dares use them — not when nobody uploads, but when nobody knows which version still matches the live rubric.

Three moves each term

Onboard a colleague's prompt — take a working prompt from chat history, have AI reorganise it into role, task, output and constraints, turn fill-in parts into [brackets], and produce a metadata block plus a "for the panel head to decide" list. Structure only: do not change marking standards or add constraints silently.

Run the termly review — the panel head checks each live template against four questions: Does it cite an updated school document? Does the constraints line still forbid rewriting and require verification? Does output format still match what admin expects in records? Are examples still current? Suggest changes; do not rewrite templates during the review pass itself.

Write handover notes — on transfer or leaving, leave the incoming teacher one sentence on purpose, numbered steps to run it, what to verify in the output, and three common failure cases. Where you are unsure of private habits, write "confirm with the panel head" instead of guessing.

Storage rule: school level, never personal chat or private cloud. A teacher joining mid-year should see the library on day one; leaving should not depend on remembering to export a folder.

When someone ignores the library

If colleagues still paste from old threads, ask why before adding more templates. Usually the answer is missing metadata or a version number that does not match the rubric on the wall. Fix trust before you fix filenames.

Pair with the knowledge base

Templates govern how you ask; the knowledge base governs which documents you cite. Templates for policy, admin or school rubrics should pair with grounded prompts with citations or the Edor.ai school knowledge base — see the school knowledge base. Administrative letter templates are best maintained once at school level and referenced by every panel, so five subjects do not maintain five different parent-letter formats.

Places that go wrong

• Files without version numbers. Three "latest" copies coexist in the shared drive. Self-check: does the filename carry v? Can only the panel head publish a new version?
• Skipping linked document and known limitations. Six months on, nobody dares use it. Self-check: are all six metadata fields filled?
• Build once, never review. School documents change while the template still cites old sections — worse than no template because people trust it. Self-check: is template review a standing panel agenda item?

Try it once

Time: 10–15 minutes.

Do this: Pick one prompt you or a colleague actually uses — marking or planning. Complete the metadata block above, rename with the four-part pattern, and mark sentences as "teacher may adjust" versus "do not change".

Deliver: The metadata block plus the renamed template, and three handover sentences — purpose, what to prepare before use, what to verify in the output.

Done when: A colleague who did not write the template can say from the metadata alone what it is for and which tasks it must not be used for (from known limitations), without searching a personal chat for an old copy.