Slide Excellence Review

Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of a Quarto deck. Up to five components run independently and in parallel, then the results are synthesized into one summary. This is the one fan-out: the former standalone proofreading, pedagogy, and devil's-advocate skills were folded in here, and the fact check and render audit joined in WP6.

Read-only. No agent edits a source file. Fixes are applied separately after the presenter reviews the reports.

Steps

1. Resolve the deck and capture its premises

$ARGUMENTS is a deck name (bare name or genre/name). Resolve paths through the scripts, never by hand, and capture three things every agent will receive:

QMD=$(python3 scripts/deckpath.py <Deck> --field qmd)
PROFILE_JSON=$(python3 scripts/deckprofile.py <Deck>)          # resolved profile, as JSON
DECK_YML=$(cat "$(python3 scripts/deckpath.py <Deck> --field config)")   # <deck>.deck.yml verbatim

If the deck predates /new-deck and has no deck.yml, DECK_YML is empty: say so, and the agents review against the genre's default profile (the profile JSON still resolves).

Set DATE to today as YYYY-MM-DD. All reports for this run go under quality_reports/reviews/ (mkdir -p it):

Component	Report
slide-auditor	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-visual-<DATE>.md
pedagogy-reviewer	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-pedagogy-<DATE>.md
proofreader	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-proofread-<DATE>.md
domain-reviewer (fact check)	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-factcheck-<DATE>.md
render audit	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-render-<DATE>.md
synthesis (this skill)	quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-<DATE>.md

2. Decide which components run (by profile)

Read profile and sources from PROFILE_JSON:

• lecture: all five components run, always. A lecture with an empty sources list still gets the fact-check agent - its report saying "no sources declared, these claims are unverifiable" is exactly the warning a lecture needs.
• paper-review, invited-talk, anything else: slide-auditor, pedagogy-reviewer, proofreader and the render audit run; the fact check runs only when sources is non-empty (a paper review's source of record is the paper itself - declare it in deck.yml: sources: to opt in).
• A deck may force a component either way when the presenter asks; say so in the synthesis.

3. Launch the review agents in parallel

Launch every selected agent in one message. Each agent's prompt contains, verbatim: the deck name, the qmd path, the full PROFILE_JSON, the full DECK_YML (fenced, labelled "deck.yml"), and its report path from the table above. The agents also re-run deckprofile.py themselves as their own step 0; passing the JSON in the prompt is what lets them start reading slides immediately and keeps one source of truth if the two ever disagree (the fresh run wins).

slide-auditor - density against the deck's own budget (it must quote bullets_max etc. from the profile JSON), overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, centering, image and figure paths.

pedagogy-reviewer - the 13 patterns, deck-level arc and pacing, the prior-session callback checked against prior_session from the profile JSON, and the devil's-advocate challenges. The challenge list lives in .claude/agents/pedagogy-reviewer.md and only there; do not restate it in the prompt.

proofreader - grammar, typos, overflow against the profile budget, consistency (citations against Bibliography_base.bib), register for the declared audience.

domain-reviewer (fact check) - reads every entry of sources (vault paths and URLs alike), compares each date, number, name and autonomy label on the slides against them, checks <deck>.forbidden.txt in spirit, flags unsourced claims.

4. Render audit

Screenshot the whole deck (this renders the html first when it is stale):

python3 scripts/shoot_slides.py <Deck> --out /tmp/<Deck>-shots

Then launch one general-purpose agent whose prompt contains: the shot directory, PROFILE_JSON, DECK_YML, and the report path. Its instructions: Read every PNG in order and report, per slide (the -NN index in the file name), anything a human in row 30 would notice:

• overflow: text or figures clipped at a slide edge
• missing posters: a video slide showing a black or empty frame
• illegible text: too small for the room, or low contrast on its background
• broken layout: overlapping elements, unstyled raw HTML, empty slides, a figure that failed to load
• wrong theme: a slide that visibly escapes the deck's theme

Same report shape as the auditor (slide, issue, severity, recommendation), saved to its report path. Read-only: it never edits and never re-renders.

5. Synthesize the combined summary

Write quality_reports/reviews/<Deck>-<DATE>.md:

# Slide Excellence Review: <Deck>

**Date:** <DATE> | **Profile:** [name] | **Audience:** [from deck.yml / the profile]
**Components run:** [list; name any skipped and why, e.g. "fact check skipped: no sources declared"]

## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR]

| Dimension | Critical | Medium | Low |
|-----------|----------|--------|-----|
| Visual/Layout | | | |
| Pedagogical (incl. challenges) | | | |
| Proofreading | | | |
| Fact check | | | |
| Render audit | | | |

### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
### Medium Issues (Next Revision)
### Recommended Next Steps

Then present to the user: the score, the per-dimension counts, the top critical issues, and every report path.

Quality Score Rubric

Score	Critical	Medium	Meaning
Excellent	0-2	0-5	Ready to present
Good	3-5	6-15	Minor refinements
Needs Work	6-10	16-30	Significant revision
Poor	11+	31+	Major restructuring

Any CRITICAL fact-check finding (a wrong fact, an autonomy mismatch, a forbidden-term near-miss) caps the score at NEEDS WORK regardless of the counts: a beautiful deck that says a teleoperated demo was autonomous is not "Good".

Notes

• /visual-audit remains the standalone layout-only pass; it uses the same scripts/shoot_slides.py screenshots.
• The devil's-advocate question list has one home: the pedagogy agent (.claude/agents/pedagogy-reviewer.md).