From the requirements - or rather desired properties.<p>> Subskills cover skills<p>Isn't this requirement a common fallacy in education?<p>First, just because you know skill A and skill B does not mean you can automatically do both A and B together. (Of course it helps!)<p>Assume you're learning a to play piece of music. If you learn a given sequence [A, B] and start with individually learning the parts A and B you'd still have to practice the transition.<p>Second, just because you know a composite skill does not mean you can do each part individually.<p>Again assume you've learned to play a part of a piece of music and the notes constituting this part can be decomposed as [A, B]. Then you'd not directly know how to play B on it's own because you've propably learnt to enter B transitioning from A.<p>Still: I think the overvall approach is interesting. Just the details might be a bit off.