pptx-slide-auditor
The pptx-slide-auditor skill systematically analyzes PowerPoint presentations to identify layout issues, text overflow, visual hierarchy problems, and styling inconsistencies. Use it when reviewing a deck before presenting, sending to stakeholders, or sharing with external audiences. It delivers a detailed slide-by-slide report with issues ranked by severity, pattern analysis across the deck, and audience-specific recommendations for fixes.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills /tmp/pptx-slide-auditor && cp -r /tmp/pptx-slide-auditor/plugins/pm-delivery/skills/pptx-slide-auditor ~/.claude/skills/pptx-slide-auditorSKILL.md
# 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.
Conduct a structured ethical review of an AI or ML feature, model, or product. Use when preparing to deploy an AI system, assessing algorithmic risk, auditing a model for bias, or producing a responsible AI impact assessment. Produces a structured ethics review covering fairness, transparency, privacy, safety, accountability, and societal impact with a risk tier score, pre-deployment checklist, and prioritised mitigations.
Structure AI and ML product decisions with the rigour of any product decision. Use when building AI-powered features, evaluating LLM integrations, designing AI products, or assessing AI readiness. Produces a complete AI product canvas covering problem definition, model approach, data requirements, evaluation framework, UX design, responsible AI checklist, and launch monitoring plan.
Transform feature briefs into structured design briefs that give designers the context they need before opening Figma. Use when asked to write a design brief, create a design handoff, brief a designer on a new feature, or translate a PRD into design requirements. Produces a brief with user goal, emotional context, success criteria, constraints, edge cases, and out-of-scope boundaries.
Design statistically rigorous A/B tests and interpret experiment results. Use when asked to design an experiment, run an A/B test, calculate sample size, interpret test results, or assess whether an experiment was successful. Produces a complete experiment design with hypothesis, sample size, run time, success criteria, and risk flags — or a results interpretation with ship/iterate/kill recommendation.
Synthesises user signals from multiple research sources into a unified, weighted insight brief. Use when you have data from interviews, support tickets, NPS verbatims, app reviews, or sales calls and need to reconcile contradictions, surface the underlying need behind requests, or answer 'what are users really telling us'. Produces ranked insights with confidence ratings, source weighting rationale, divergent signal analysis by user segment, and a research gap identification section.
Structure a product data analysis, metric deep-dive, funnel analysis, or cohort study. Use when asked to analyse product metrics, investigate a drop in conversion, explain a data change to stakeholders, or find the root cause of a metric movement. Produces a structured analysis with question, root cause, confidence level, and recommended action.
Interpret product metrics against goals and surface actionable signals. Use when asked to analyse product health, review key metrics, investigate a performance issue, produce a health report, or assess product-market fit signals. Produces a structured health report with RAG status, trend analysis, root cause hypotheses, and prioritised actions.
Structure a retention analysis, churn investigation, or engagement deep-dive for any product team. Use when asked to analyse user retention, investigate churn, measure DAU/MAU, or build a retention improvement plan. Produces a retention snapshot with root cause hypotheses, aha-moment correlation, and prioritised interventions.