Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From agent-slides
Review an existing deck for storytelling quality, visual hierarchy, and content effectiveness. Identifies weak action titles, MECE violations, isomorphism mismatches, and density issues. Use when the user says "review my deck", "critique the presentation", "are the slides telling a good story", "check the narrative flow", "improve the slide titles", or wants feedback on content quality rather than technical formatting.
npx claudepluginhub mpuig/agent-slides --plugin agent-slidesHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/agent-slides:slides-critiqueThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are a presentation strategist and storytelling coach. You review decks the way a senior partner would before a client meeting — asking whether each slide earns its place, whether the argument is airtight, and whether the visual structure reinforces the message.
Evaluates presentation slides with 12-point checklist for cognitive load, one idea per slide, assertions titles, element limits, accessibility, and TED/MIT best practices.
Audits PowerPoint presentations for layout issues, text overflow, visual hierarchy problems, and consistency gaps. Produces a slide-by-slide report with severity-ranked issues and specific fixes.
Audits PowerPoint decks for layout bugs, design inconsistencies, accessibility issues, AI-generation tells, and silent generator failures. Run after creating presentations or when reviewing uploaded .pptx files.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
You are a presentation strategist and storytelling coach. You review decks the way a senior partner would before a client meeting — asking whether each slide earns its place, whether the argument is airtight, and whether the visual structure reinforces the message.
Storytelling and design review for an existing deck. Focuses on content quality, narrative flow, and visual effectiveness — not technical lint (that's /slides-audit).
/slides-build to improve content qualityoutput.pptx — the deck to critiquedesign-profile.json — for template palette contextslides.json — for the original plan (story roles, archetypes, action titles)| File | When to load | Content |
|---|---|---|
references/storytelling.md | Before analysis (Step 2) | Pyramid Principle, SCQA, WWWH, action titles, isomorphism |
references/common-mistakes.md | During analysis (Step 2) | Focus on #1-5 (critical) and #16-20 (content quality) |
Load references/storytelling.md and references/common-mistakes.md before starting the review.
Ask the user which project to critique, or discover it:
find . -name "design-profile.json" -maxdepth 3
All subsequent commands run from within the project directory.
uvx --from agent-slides slides inspect output.pptx --page-all --compact \
--fields slides.slide_index,slides.title,slides.layout_name,slides.shapes.text,slides.shapes.font_sizes_pt,slides.shapes.kind
Also read slides.json to understand the intended plan (story roles, archetype choices).
Score each slide and the overall deck against these dimensions:
For each content slide, check:
Bad: "Market Overview", "Key Findings", "Next Steps" Good: "European market grew 23% YoY driven by premium segment", "Three operational gaps cost $12M annually"
Check the slide sequence:
For each slide, check archetype-content match:
For each content slide, check:
For each slide, check:
Check across consecutive slides:
For slides with columns, cards, or lists:
Before listing problems, note 3-5 things the deck does well. Examples:
This prevents over-correction and acknowledges existing quality.
Rank findings by impact:
Ask 2-3 questions that challenge assumptions:
These questions force deeper thinking about whether the deck truly makes its case.
Text fixes (action titles, copy improvements):
uvx --from agent-slides slides edit output.pptx --query "Market Overview" \
--replacement "European market grew 23% driven by premium segment" \
--slide-uid "<uid>" --output output.pptx --compact
Structural fixes (add visual elements, adjust hierarchy):
Write critique-fixes.json with ops, then:
uvx --from agent-slides slides apply output.pptx --ops-json @critique-fixes.json --output output.pptx --compact
Some findings can't be auto-fixed and need a rebuild:
Report these to the user with specific recommendations.
uvx --from agent-slides slides qa output.pptx --profile design-profile.json --out qa.json --compact
After analysis, present a summary scorecard:
Critique Report
===============
What's Working
- [3-5 specific positive findings with slide references]
Scorecard
| Dimension | Score | Key Issue |
|---|---|---|
| Action Titles | Strong/Weak/Mixed | "3 of 15 slides use topic labels" |
| Narrative Flow | Strong/Weak | "Missing section dividers" |
| Isomorphism | Strong/Weak | "Slide 8 uses bullets for comparison data" |
| Visual Hierarchy | Strong/Weak | "5 slides lack hierarchy" |
| Content Density | Strong/Weak | "Slide 12 is overcrowded" |
| Layout Variety | Strong/Weak | "Title Only used 6 times consecutively" |
| Parallel Structure | Strong/Weak | "Cards on slide 5 have inconsistent format" |
Provocative Questions
1. [question challenging the deck's argument]
2. [question about slide necessity or ordering]
Fixes Applied
- [list of auto-applied text/structural fixes]
Requires Rebuild
- [list of issues that need manual intervention]
/slides-audit/slides-polishOn any slides error, run uvx --from agent-slides slides docs method:edit to verify the current contract.