ielts-task1-review

IELTS Task 1 Review

Core Rule

Analyze the visual prompt before correcting the student's writing. For Task 1, accurate chart/table/map/process understanding is part of Task Achievement, so do not polish language before identifying the main features.

Use these references in order:

1. Read references/visual_analysis_protocol.md to inspect the visual.
2. Read references/teacher_style.md for Task 1 teacher-style marking.
3. Read references/ielts_task1_band_descriptors.md before scoring.
4. Use references/teacher_samples_index.md to find relevant samples, then read full samples from references/teacher_samples/ when useful.
5. Use references/review_format.md for DOCX layout and cleanup rules.

Workflow

1. Identify the prompt, embedded image, and student answer.
   • For .docx, extract embedded images with scripts/extract_docx_images.py.
   • Inspect the extracted image directly before reviewing. This is mandatory: never score or rewrite a Task 1 answer from the text alone.
   • For .docx, also run scripts/extract_task1_input.py so the review plan can distinguish prompt text from student answer paragraphs.
   • For pasted text, require an image attachment or image path.
2. Build an internal visual facts note.
   • Identify visual type, units, categories, time periods, axes, legends, stages, and key values.
   • Identify overview-level features before local details.
   • Keep this note internal unless the user explicitly asks to see it.
3. Check the student's Task Achievement.
   • Mark inaccurate chart type, wrong units, missing overview, wrong key feature selection, inaccurate values, or irrelevant details in comments.
4. Select the closest teacher samples by visual type before writing comments.
   • First classify the new task as bar chart, line graph, table, pie chart, map, process, or mixed visual.
   • Use references/teacher_samples_index.md to find similar sample files, then inspect one or two matching full samples.
   • Prefer same visual type and same main challenge, such as trend comparison, proportions, maps, process sequencing, or mixed table/chart reporting.
5. Split the answer into review units.
   • Use sentence-level units for grammar, articles, plural forms, data phrasing, collocation, and formal wording.
   • Use paragraph-level units for overview errors, poor grouping, data misreading, map/process sequencing, or missing comparisons.
6. Add teacher-style comments.
   • Use short English comments anchored to specific words or phrases.
   • Use comments like Specify type: bar chart, mention proportions, slightly repetitive, formal, Use comma, This is stated in overview.
7. Add italic rewrites after relevant units.
   • Rewrites must be concise, formal, data-accurate, and at a stable Band 7.5 standard.
   • Keep rewrites learnable and close to the student's intended meaning; do not turn local fixes into over-complex Band 9 wording.
8. Score the student's original answer strictly using official Task 1 descriptors.
   • Score Task Achievement, Coherence & Cohesion, Lexical Resource, Grammatical Range & Accuracy, and estimated overall band.
   • For this teacher-style educational review, criterion scores and the estimated overall score may use whole or half bands, such as 6, 6.5, or 7. Use .5 when the original answer sits between adjacent whole-band descriptor anchors; do not force criterion scores to integers.
9. Give concise Band 7.5 / 8.0-oriented feedback.
   • Mention blockers preventing stable Band 7.5 first.
   • Then mention the most useful move toward 8.0.
10. Write a 150-200 word model answer at a stable Band 8.0 standard.

• Use exactly four paragraphs:
  1. Introduction: paraphrase the task prompt.
  2. Overview: begin with Overall and summarize the main features.
  3. Body paragraph 1: report the first logical group of details.
  4. Body paragraph 2: report the second logical group of details.
• Leave one blank line between model answer paragraphs in the output DOCX.
• Align it with the visual and official criteria.
• Correct any inaccurate visual interpretation.
• It must be strong enough for Band 8.0: skilful key feature selection, clear overview, logical grouping, precise data language, natural comparisons, well-managed cohesion, and mostly error-free grammar.
• Keep it realistic and teacher-like, not an over-complex Band 9 answer.

1. Generate a reviewed .docx by default.

• For input MyAnswer.docx, output MyAnswer(reviewed).docx in the same folder unless the user specifies another path.
• For DOCX input, create the reviewed file by copying the original DOCX first.
• Write comments directly into the copied original answer paragraphs; do not create a second copy of the student's answer for comments.
• Insert italic rewrites immediately after the matched original answer paragraph.
• Keep the original prompt and embedded visual in place; do not repeat the task prompt or image.
• For pasted text, output to /Users/aaronliang/Desktop/IELTS_Task1_Reviewed_YYYYMMDD_HHMM.docx.
• Use Times New Roman for all added review text and comments.
• Use Cyber Esme as the Word comment author.
• Do not include a visible Visual Facts section unless the user asks for it or --include-visual-facts is intentionally used.
• Do not add big visible section headings such as Task, Reviewed Answer, Score, or Model Answer.
• Preserve the original word/document.xml root namespace declarations and mc:Ignorable; do not leave undeclared prefixes such as w14, w15, w16*, or wp14.
• Insert a page break before the score and feedback page; keep the score lines and To Reach Band 7.5 / 8.0 together; insert another page break before the model answer.
• Never overwrite the original answer unless explicitly requested.

1. Clean up temporary byproducts after a successful review.

• Delete temporary files such as review_plan_*.json, extracted scratch images, and unpacked DOCX folders.
• scripts/extract_docx_images.py creates a unique /private/tmp/ielts_task1_images_* directory by default; delete that scratch directory after validation.
• Do not delete source answers, final reviewed DOCX files, or bundled reference files.