Game Design Pitch Deck Audit
SkillMediaAudit a video game pitch deck, publisher deck, funding deck, or investor-facing game presentation for clarity, structure, persuasiveness, visual readability, business-case completeness, and publisher-fit. Use when reviewing a pitch deck before sending to publishers, polishing a deck for meetings, checking whether the deck answers the essential questions about who, what, why, when, budget, and opportunity, or evaluating whether a deck sells both the game and the collaboration case rather than just dumping information.
Available today. Use it from your connected AI after setup.
No other account needed.
Connect ahel once, and every AI you use reads what you have installed.
Then ask your AI: use the Game Design Pitch Deck Audit skill
What this skill tells your AI
The instructions your AI receives, as published by stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle in game-design-pitch-deck-audit/SKILL.md and read by ahel’s review.
Audit a game pitch deck as both a persuasion tool and a business-case artifact.
Use this skill to evaluate whether a game pitch deck is clear, compelling, visually readable, and properly structured for publisher or funding conversations. Focus on whether the deck makes a strong case for the team, the game, the opportunity, the ask, and the path to completion.
Core principle
A good pitch deck does not merely describe a game. It builds confidence in the team, sells the dream of the project, proves the work, frames the opportunity, and makes a realistic ask.
What to produce
Generate:
- Deck overview - what the deck is trying to do and for whom
- Structure audit - whether the core sections are present and in a persuasive order
- Content audit - strengths, gaps, and weak claims
- Visual/readability audit - whether the deck is easy to follow without live narration
- Publisher-fit audit - whether the deck answers the practical questions a publisher or funder will ask
- Recommendations - what to cut, strengthen, reorder, or add
Audit lenses
Audit the deck through these lenses:
- Who - who is making the game and why they are credible
- Why / opportunity - why this project exists and why now
- What - what the game is, what makes it stand out, and what the final vision is
- Proof - what already exists that proves the team can deliver
- Business case - comparables, target audience, monetization, market logic, and opportunity
- Ask - budget, timeline, platforms, scope, and what support is being requested
- Readability - whether the deck works when sent ahead of a meeting without narration
Process
1. Define the deck context
Clarify:
- who the audience is: publisher, investor, platform, partner, grant body
- whether this deck is meant to be sent async, presented live, or both
- what stage the project is in: concept, prototype, vertical slice, production
- whether the deck is accompanied by a build, trailer, GDD, or other materials
2. Audit the high-level structure
Check whether the deck answers the essential questions:
- What are you making?
- Why are you making it?
- Who is making it?
- Where do you want to go?
- What do you need to get there?
- When will you get there?
Also check whether the deck roughly covers:
- team / studio credibility
- artistic why
- business why / opportunity
- dream of the game
- proof of the game
- work / systems / core loop
- market or comparables
- timeline and budget
- summary and contact info
3. Audit the team and credibility section
Ask:
- does the deck establish why this team should be trusted?
- does it show relevant shipped work, experience, or platform familiarity?
- is it concise, or does it waste time on irrelevant biography?
- does it explain who will actually make the game if funded?
4. Audit the game pitch itself
Check for three distinct functions:
- Dream - does the deck sell the final vision of the game?
- Proof - does it show prototype, vertical slice, or other non-speculative evidence?
- Work - does it explain how the game operates, what the core loop is, and why the game is compelling?
Ask:
- is the hook clear quickly?
- are the unique selling points obvious?
- does the deck lean into strengths strongly enough?
- does it show what is familiar and then what is unique?
- does it explain why the game matters, not just what it contains?
5. Audit the business case
Ask:
- does the deck explain the opportunity and target audience?
- are comparables believable and useful rather than vanity references?
- is monetization or business model clearly stated if relevant?
- is the market framing grounded, or just wishful genre enthusiasm?
- does the deck sell the collaboration case, not just the product fantasy?
6. Audit the ask
Check whether the deck makes a realistic ask around:
- budget
- timeline
- platforms
- release window
- build status
- support needed
Ask:
- is the budget plausible and safely scoped?
- are the timeline ratios believable?
- is the ask too low in a way that signals inexperience?
- does the deck separate development needs from broader publishing or marketing assumptions when relevant?
7. Audit deck usability and readability
Ask:
- does the deck work without live commentary?
- is the text readable and concise?
- are the slides overcrowded?
- does imagery carry the message effectively?
- are GIFs, videos, mockups, or key art used meaningfully?
- is the style aligned with the tone of the game?
- does the deck avoid pointless bullet sludge?
8. Audit submission readiness
If the deck is intended for publishers, check whether the package likely includes or references:
- a playable build
- control notes if needed
- skippable cutscenes or checkpoints if relevant to the build
- budget in practical terms
- timeline to release
- supplementary materials that help a stranger understand the project quickly
9. Diagnose common failure patterns
Common pitch-deck failure patterns:
- Identity fog - unclear what the game actually is
- Dream without proof - strong fantasy, weak evidence
- Proof without dream - lots of prototype facts, no compelling vision
- Bio bloat - too much team info with too little relevance
- Market handwaving - vague business claims with weak comparables
- Budget naivety - undercooked ask or unrealistic timeline
- Narration dependency - deck only works if someone explains everything live
- Template autopilot - all the right sections exist, but the deck says nothing memorable
- Visual sludge - unreadable, cramped, or aesthetically disconnected from the game
10. Convert findings into recommendations
For each issue, specify:
- Problem
- Why it hurts the pitch
- Fix direction
- Priority - critical / important / polish
Response structure
Deck Overview
- ...
Structure Audit
- Present: ...
- Missing or weak: ...
Content Audit
- Team credibility: ...
- Game hook: ...
- Proof: ...
- Business case: ...
- Ask: ...
Visual / Readability Audit
- ...
Publisher-Fit Audit
- ...
Failure Patterns
- ...
Recommendations
- ...
- ...
- ...
Fast mode
- What is the game?
- Why this team?
- Why this opportunity?
- What proof already exists?
- What is the ask?
- Would this deck still make sense if read without you in the room?
References
Read these when useful:
references/pitch-deck-notes.mdfor distilled deck structure and slide expectations from the templatesreferences/raw-fury-notes.mdfor the Raw Fury-specific pitch expectations
Working principle
A good pitch deck should make a stranger understand the game, trust the team, believe the opportunity, and feel the ask is grounded.
Signals
- GitHub stars
- 62
- Forks
- 12
- Last commit
- Aug 2026
Advanced
- Catalog kind
- skill
- Gateway key
game-design-pitch-deck-audit- Source
- github.com/stanestane/game-design-skills-bundle