Menu

Individual skill

deck-review-rubric

0upvotes

Review a deck against a rubric instead of taste — the five dimensions (argument, evidence, density, arc, honesty), the severity-sorted feedback that separates broken from suboptimal, and the review conversation that improves the deck without rewriting it in the reviewer's voice. Use when asked review my deck, give feedback on this presentation, is this ready for the board, or our deck reviews are just font opinions. Produces the rubric scores with evidence, the severity-sorted feedback, the two-fixes-that-matter-most call, and the reviewer discipline notes.

skills/deck-review-rubric/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit f7c90bc09ee05dc25cf257bdb1826f2c2552c2cb

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
1,540
Repository last updated
Nov 10, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Deck Review Rubric Skill

Deck reviews default to taste: font opinions, color takes, and "I'd reorder this" — the reviewer's aesthetic imposed at slide grain while the deck's actual failure (no argument, no ask, dishonest chart) sails through unexamined. The rubric reviews what decks fail at: **argument** (do the headlines make a case — [deck-outline-first](../deck-outline-first/SKILL.md) skim test), **evidence** (does each slide prove its claim — [evidence-grading](../evidence-grading/SKILL.md) weight), **density** (billboard or wall — [slide-density-rules](../slide-density-rules/SKILL.md)), **arc** (does tension carry the room — [deck-narrative-arc](../deck-narrative-arc/SKILL.md)), and **honesty** (axes, claims, caveats — [citation-hygiene](../citation-hygiene/SKILL.md)). Findings sort by severity — broken beats suboptimal beats taste — and the review ends with the only sentence presenters can act on: the two fixes that matter most.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The rubric scores** — the five dimensions, each with the evidence for its score (cited slides, not vibes)
- **The severity-sorted findings** — 🔴 broken (would fail in the room) / 🟡 suboptimal (costs force) / ⚪ taste (offered, labeled)
- **The two-fixes call** — the highest-leverage changes, because forty comments produce paralysis and two produce a better deck
- **The reviewer discipline** — the [review-comments-resolver](../review-comments-resolver/SKILL.md) contract honored from the giving side

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
Back to top