mohitagw15856
05b6d799f0
Three more learnings from alirezarezvani/claude-skills, applied: 1. SkillCheck validator (scripts/skillcheck.mjs) — validates every SKILL.md against the authoring standard (frontmatter, name/folder match, trigger + produces clauses, required headings) plus tier referential integrity. Errors fail CI; --strict fails on warnings too. New skillcheck.yml workflow and a SkillCheck status badge in the README. Current: 0 errors / 14 advisory warnings across 172 skills. 2. Cursor export platform — build-exports.mjs now generates exports/cursor/<bundle>/<skill>/<skill>.mdc rule files. The PLATFORMS registry now supports per-skill filenames (file as a function). 3. Per-agent installers — scripts/install.sh unifies install for claude/hermes/codex/openclaw/cursor (--link, --target, --dry-run, --list). Curl-able one-liners codex-install.sh, openclaw-install.sh, and cursor-install.sh clone the library and install in a single command. README documents the one-line installs and Cursor exports; CHANGELOG and the authoring standard updated. Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016JWn5jRD5tcEFKrubjQ6Px Co-authored-by: Claude <noreply@anthropic.com>
103 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
103 lines
4.7 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
description: "Audit a PowerPoint presentation for layout issues, text overflow, visual hierarchy problems, and consistency gaps. Use when asked to review a slide deck, check a presentation before a meeting, audit slides for layout problems, or QA a deck before sharing. Produces a slide-by-slide report with issues ranked by severity and specific fixes. Best used with Claude Opus 4.7 or newer for reliable slide-level vision analysis."
|
|
globs:
|
|
alwaysApply: false
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# PPTX Slide Auditor Skill
|
|
|
|
Runs a systematic visual and structural audit of a PowerPoint presentation — identifying layout issues, text overflow, inconsistent styling, weak visual hierarchy, and slides that will cause problems in a presentation setting. Built to leverage Opus 4.7 vision improvements for pixel-level layout analysis.
|
|
|
|
## Required Inputs
|
|
|
|
Ask the user for these if not provided:
|
|
- **The deck** (upload the .pptx file or individual slide screenshots)
|
|
- **Audience** (internal team / executive / external client / conference / investor)
|
|
- **Presentation mode** (presented live / sent to read / shared async on video)
|
|
- **Areas of concern** (optional — e.g. "I think slide 12 is overcrowded")
|
|
|
|
## Output Structure
|
|
|
|
### 1. Deck Overview
|
|
| Metric | Result |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| Total slides | N |
|
|
| Overall status | Ready / Minor fixes needed / Major revisions required |
|
|
| Readability score | /10 |
|
|
| Visual consistency score | /10 |
|
|
| Most common issue | [Pattern observed across multiple slides] |
|
|
|
|
### 2. Slide-by-Slide Audit
|
|
|
|
For each slide with issues:
|
|
|
|
**Slide N: [Slide title]**
|
|
- Status: Ready / Fix before sending / Major revision
|
|
- Issues found:
|
|
- [Specific issue with exact location — e.g. "Body text extends beyond the text frame on the right side"]
|
|
- [Issue 2]
|
|
- Suggested fix: [Specific action — move element, reduce text, resize]
|
|
|
|
Slides with no issues: just list the slide numbers. Do not write anything else about them.
|
|
|
|
### 3. Pattern Issues Across the Deck
|
|
|
|
Issues that repeat across multiple slides:
|
|
|
|
**[Pattern title — e.g. "Inconsistent body text size"]**
|
|
- Slides affected: [list]
|
|
- Root cause: [master slide issue / manual overrides / mixed templates]
|
|
- Fix: [Single action to resolve across all affected slides]
|
|
|
|
### 4. Visual Hierarchy Check
|
|
|
|
| Dimension | Status | Notes |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| Title consistency (size, font, colour) | Pass / Fail | |
|
|
| Body text readability at presentation distance | Pass / Fail | |
|
|
| Image placement alignment | Pass / Fail | |
|
|
| Whitespace and breathing room | Pass / Fail | |
|
|
| Data visualisation clarity | Pass / Fail / N/A | |
|
|
|
|
### 5. Audience-Specific Flags
|
|
|
|
Based on the stated audience:
|
|
|
|
- **Executive audience:** flag slides with too much text, complex tables, or unclear bottom-line messages
|
|
- **External client:** flag slides with internal jargon, unfinished placeholder text, or confidentiality concerns
|
|
- **Live presentation:** flag slides that will be hard to read from the back of a room
|
|
- **Async/video:** flag slides that assume a presenter voiceover
|
|
|
|
### 6. Prioritised Fix List
|
|
|
|
| # | Fix | Slide | Effort | Impact |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1 | [Specific fix] | Slide N | Low/Med/High | High |
|
|
|
|
Order by: fixes before handoff (critical) > consistency fixes (high) > polish (medium).
|
|
|
|
## Quality Checks
|
|
- [ ] Every issue references a specific slide number and location on the slide
|
|
- [ ] Pattern issues are identified separately from slide-specific issues
|
|
- [ ] Fix list is ordered by impact, not by slide order
|
|
- [ ] Audience-appropriate concerns flagged explicitly
|
|
- [ ] Slides without issues are listed briefly, not ignored
|
|
|
|
## Anti-Patterns
|
|
|
|
- [ ] Do not flag stylistic preferences as issues — only report genuine layout problems, overflow, and consistency errors
|
|
- [ ] Do not produce a flat list of issues — group by severity (Critical / Major / Minor) so fixes can be prioritised
|
|
- [ ] Do not skip slides without commenting — every slide must have an explicit pass or issue status
|
|
- [ ] Do not suggest redesigning content — the audit scope is layout, consistency, and readability, not messaging
|
|
- [ ] Do not report the same issue type repeatedly across slides without summarising the pattern — consolidate repeated issues
|
|
|
|
## Example Trigger Phrases
|
|
- "Audit this slide deck before my board meeting"
|
|
- "Review this PowerPoint for layout issues"
|
|
- "Check this presentation for consistency problems"
|
|
- "QA my deck before I send it to the client"
|
|
- "What is wrong with slide 7 in this deck?"
|
|
|
|
## Why This Works Better on Opus 4.7
|
|
Earlier models struggled with precise spatial analysis of slide layouts — they would hallucinate issues or miss obvious overflow problems. Opus 4.7 vision improvements mean coordinates map 1:1 to pixels, making slide-level issue detection reliable without manual screenshot annotation.
|