Goal

• Review and criticize a slide deck or subset of slides provided by the user
• Identify mistakes and improvement opportunities, focusing on factual errors, rather than style suggestions
• Propose concrete, ranked improvements to content, flow, visual clarity, pacing, and audience fit

Workflow

Step 1: Read the Material

• Read .claude/skills/slides.rules.md for the rules that slides must follow

• Read the slide deck file passed by the user

  • Note the deck title, target audience, and stated learning objectives (if any)
  • Read all slides sequentially to understand the narrative arc

• Read context about the presentation:

  • What is the venue/duration? (lecture, conference talk, workshop, etc.)
  • What is the assumed prior knowledge?
  • Are there adjacent slide decks or prerequisite presentations?

Step 2: Criticize

• Read .claude/skills/text.criticize/SKILL.md to understand general approaches to review and criticize text

• Evaluate along these axes, reporting only issues you are confident about:

  • Slide-level clarity:
    • Too much text per slide (exceeds visible time + cognitive load)
    • Unclear titles or takeaways
    • Missing or weak visual hierarchy
    • Jargon or concepts assumed without intro
  • Deck flow & narrative:
    • Abrupt transitions between ideas
    • Slides in wrong order (should come earlier/later)
    • Orphaned or tangential slides
    • Missing bridge slides to connect concepts
    • Pacing (too slow intro, rushed conclusion, uneven rhythm)
  • Audience fit:
    • Level too high or too low for stated audience
    • Unexplained background assumptions
    • Missing motivation or context for why this matters
  • Structure & consistency:
    • Inconsistent formatting or visual style
    • Slides that break the template (if one exists)
    • Missing agenda, summary, or chapter breaks
    • Speaker notes missing or incomplete
  • Timing & scope:
    • Deck too long or too short for the slot
    • Individual slides that will overrun or underrun their time
    • Candidates to expand, collapse, or split
  • Engagement & visuals:
    • Slides that rely only on bullet points (no visuals, examples, or storytelling)
    • Diagrams or images that are unclear or misleading
    • Missing opportunities for interaction or questions

• Rank each issue by severity:

  • HIGH: loses attention, undermines a key point, or creates wrong takeaway
  • MEDIUM: reduces clarity or engagement
  • LOW: minor polish or consistency

Step 3: Write Result

• Write results using the same format and file as in ## Step 4: Write the Results in .claude/skills/text.criticize/SKILL.md

Step 4: Wait for Approval

• Present the criticism to the user
• Wait for the user to select items to apply by index and give corrections
• Only then edit the slide deck
• Preserve formatting, speaker notes, and visual structure