slide-excellence — Claude Code skill: full slide review
Multi-agent pass over lecture slides: visual, pedagogy and proofreading in one run. Useful before teaching or shipping a deck.
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a claude-codeWhat slide-excellence does
The skill fans out several subagents over one file, each with its own lens, then synthesizes the results. The visual auditor looks for overflow, inconsistent fonts, box fatigue and spacing. The pedagogy reviewer works through narrative, prerequisites, worked examples and notation. The proofreader handles grammar, typos, terminology and citations.
Dispatch is conditional. The TikZ reviewer only spawns when the file contains \begin{tikzpicture}. Content parity between .tex and .qmd runs only if a counterpart exists in Quarto/ or Slides/. Before that, the skill renders the Quarto target and runs scripts/slide-qa.py so the auditor gets measured overflow and screenshots.
On a .tex file there is a mandatory gate: .claude/agents/domain-reviewer.md has to be customized for your field. The shipped version is a template, and running it as-is returns generic questions instead of real domain review. The skill stops and offers three ways forward — customize the reviewer, pass --skip-substance, or accept the template with --acknowledge-template-domain-reviewer. It runs in a forked context and cannot wait for an answer, so you re-invoke with the flag you pick.
What it helps with
- review a whole deck before teaching it
- catch overflow and broken layout on slides
- check narrative and prerequisites in a lecture
- proofread typos and terminology across slides
- compare a Beamer deck with its Quarto counterpart
Example prompts for the agent
- /slide-excellence Lecture2.qmd
- /slide-excellence Slides/Lecture3.tex --fast
- /slide-excellence Lecture4.tex --skip-substance
How to install slide-excellence
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a claude-code2Manually: put the files in place
~/.claude/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.mdCopy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/slide-excellence/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a codex2Manually: put the files in place
.agents/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.mdFor all projects use ~/.agents/skills/
1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a cursor2Manually: put the files in place
.cursor/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.mdCursor also reads .agents/skills/ and .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow slide-excellence2Manually: put the files in place
.github/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.md1Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a gemini-cli2Platform CLI
gemini skills install https://github.com/pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --path .claude/skills/slide-excellenceManually: put the files in place
.devin/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.mdThe legacy .windsurf/skills/ path still works
Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a opencodeClaude.ai
Zip the folder and upload it in Settings → Capabilities → Skills
Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways
Questions about slide-excellence
How do I install slide-excellence in Claude?
Run npx skills add pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow --skill slide-excellence -a claude-code. The skill lands at ~/.claude/skills/slide-excellence/SKILL.md.
What does slide-excellence do?
It runs several subagents over your slides at once — visual audit, pedagogy review, proofreading, plus TikZ and parity checks when their conditions hold. Reports go to quality_reports/.
Why does the skill stop on a .tex file?
Because .claude/agents/domain-reviewer.md is still the shipped template and has not been customized for your field. Re-run with --skip-substance or --acknowledge-template-domain-reviewer.
Source text
SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: slide-excellence
description: Multi-agent comprehensive slide review (visual + pedagogy + proofreading, plus TikZ / parity / substance conditionally). Use when user says "full review", "excellence pass", "comprehensive check", "review everything", "pre-release review", "slide excellence", or before teaching / shipping a deck. Fanout wrapper — for a single lens, use `/visual-audit`, `/pedagogy-review`, or `/proofread` directly.
argument-hint: "[QMD or TEX filename] [--fast] [--skip-substance | --acknowledge-template-domain-reviewer]"
allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob", "Write", "Bash", "Agent", "Task"]
context: fork
---
# Slide Excellence Review
Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of lecture slides. Multiple agents analyze the file independently, then results are synthesized.
> **Which slide-review skill do I want?**
>
> - **`/slide-excellence`** (this skill) — multi-agent fanout (visual + pedagogy + proofread, plus TikZ / parity / substance conditionally). Best for **pre-teaching** or **pre-release** checks.
> - **`/visual-audit`** — single lens, layout/overflow/font/spacing only. Fast.
> - **`/pedagogy-review`** — single lens, narrative/prerequisites/worked-examples/notation.
> - **`/proofread`** — single lens, grammar/typos/overflow/terminology.
> - **`/qa-quarto`** — adversarial Beamer ↔ Quarto parity (critic-fixer loop).
> - **`/devils-advocate`** — 5-7 pointed challenges, not a full review.
**Important:** this orchestrator does **conditional** dispatch — it only spawns the subagents that can actually produce useful output for the given file. It does not run `tikz-reviewer` on a file with zero TikZ, or `quarto-critic` on a deck without a counterpart.
## Step 1: Identify the File
Parse `$ARGUMENTS` for the filename. Resolve path in `Quarto/` or `Slides/`.
Determine the file type:
- `.tex` → Beamer
- `.qmd` → Quarto
- `.md` → Markdown slides
## Step 2: Pre-flight — Detect Conditions
Before spawning any agent, probe the file to determine which reviews make sense:
```bash
FILE="$resolved_path"
# Has TikZ diagrams?
has_tikz=$(grep -c '\\begin{tikzpicture}' "$FILE" 2>/dev/null); has_tikz=${has_tikz:-0}
# For .qmd: is there a paired .tex in Slides/?
has_tex_pair="false"
if [[ "$FILE" == *.qmd ]]; then
base="$(basename "$FILE" .qmd)"
# Common Beamer suffixes: _Topic, _Lecture, exact match
for candidate in "Slides/${base}.tex" "Slides/Lecture${base}.tex"; do
if [ -f "$candidate" ]; then
has_tex_pair="true"
tex_pair="$candidate"
break
fi
done
fi
# For .tex: is there a paired .qmd in Quarto/?
has_qmd_pair="false"
if [[ "$FILE" == *.tex ]]; then
base="$(basename "$FILE" .tex)"
for candidate in "Quarto/${base}.qmd" "Quarto/${base#Lecture}.qmd"; do
if [ -f "$candidate" ]; then
has_qmd_pair="true"
qmd_pair="$candidate"
break
fi
done
fi
# Measure the Quarto render once — the file itself, or a .tex file's Quarto pair.
# The report goes to Agents A and E. slide-qa exits 0 (clean) or 1 (a finding:
# overflow, clipped content, or a broken asset) with a fresh report, 2 if it could
# not run (it deletes old reports first).
qa_report=""; qa_target=""
if [[ "$FILE" == *.qmd ]]; then qa_target="$FILE"
elif [ "$has_qmd_pair" = "true" ]; then qa_target="$qmd_pair"; fi
if [ -n "$qa_target" ]; then
quarto render "$qa_target" >/dev/null 2>&1
"${SLIDE_QA_PYTHON:-python3}" scripts/slide-qa.py "$qa_target"
if [ $? -ne 2 ]; then
qa_report="quality_reports/audits/slide-qa/$(basename "$qa_target" .qmd)/report.md"
fi
fi
# Has R code chunks or referenced R scripts?
has_r="false"
if grep -qE '```\{r|source\(.*\.R\)' "$FILE" 2>/dev/null; then
has_r="true"
fi
```
Report the detection:
```
File: path/to/file.tex
Type: Beamer (.tex)
TikZ blocks: 3
Quarto pair: Quarto/Lecture2.qmd (found)
R chunks: none
Slide QA: quality_reports/audits/slide-qa/Lecture2/report.md (or: could not run — reason)
```
## Step 3: Domain-reviewer customization check (MANDATORY for .tex)
Before spawning the substance-review agent on a `.tex` file, verify `.claude/agents/domain-reviewer.md` has been customized for this project. The ship-state domain-reviewer is a **template** — running it unmodified produces generic "are assumptions stated?" feedback, not real domain review.
Detection heuristic (any of these → still template):
- Contains the marker token `AUTO-DETECT-TEMPLATE-MARKER` anywhere in the file (present in the shipped template; removed/replaced when customized). Detection is a substring match — the marker can span lines.
- Contains any `<!-- Customize: ... -->` or `[Customize: ...]` placeholder (both forms are checked).
- The five lenses are identical to the shipped template's wording (diff against `.claude/agents/domain-reviewer.md` on the v1.3.0 tag — if zero lines changed, it's still template).
If the template marker is present:
```
⚠️ domain-reviewer.md has not been customized for your field.
Running it in its shipped state produces generic checks ("are assumptions
stated?") rather than field-specific review. Options:
1. Customize .claude/agents/domain-reviewer.md — replace the 5 lenses
with checks for your field (the file's EXAMPLES block shows two
disciplines to copy from).
2. Run slide-excellence with --skip-substance to proceed without the
substance-review agent. Other reviewers still run.
3. Run slide-excellence with --acknowledge-template-domain-reviewer to
proceed anyway (you'll get generic feedback from the substance agent).
```
Stop here and return these options — this skill runs in a forked context and cannot wait for an answer. Do not run `domain-reviewer` on the uncustomized template; the user re-invokes with the flag they choose.
## Step 4: Run Review Agents in Parallel
Spawn only the agents whose conditions hold:
**Always-on for slides (`.tex` or `.qmd`):**
- **Agent A: Visual Audit** (`slide-auditor`)
Overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, spacing, images. When `$qa_report` is set (a `.qmd`, or a `.tex` with a Quarto pair), pass it — measured overflow plus screenshots; if slide-qa could not run, say so in the summary.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_visual_audit.md`.
- **Agent B: Pedagogical Review** (`pedagogy-reviewer`)
13 pedagogical patterns, narrative, pacing, notation.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_pedagogy_report.md`.
- **Agent C: Proofreading** (`proofreader`)
Grammar, typos, consistency, academic quality, citations.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_proofread_report.md`.
**Conditional:**
- **Agent D: TikZ Review** (`tikz-reviewer`) — only if `has_tikz > 0`.
Measurement-based collision audit (Bézier, gaps, boundaries, margins).
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_tikz_review.md`.
- **Agent E: Content Parity** (`quarto-critic`) — only if the file has a counterpart (`has_tex_pair` or `has_qmd_pair`).
Frame count comparison, environment parity, content drift between `.tex` ↔ `.qmd`. Pass `$qa_report` when there is one.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_parity_report.md`.
- **Agent F: R Code Review** (`r-reviewer`) — only if `has_r == true`.
Code correctness for any embedded R chunks or referenced scripts.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_r_review.md`.
- **Agent G: Substance Review** (`domain-reviewer`) — MANDATORY for `.tex`, OPTIONAL for `.qmd`, GATED by Step 3.
Domain correctness via the 5-lens framework.
Save: `quality_reports/[FILE]_substance_review.md`.
**De-duplication:** if one of these skills already produced a report for this file in the current session (e.g. `/proofread` ran first), reuse that report when it is newer than the file and list which reports were reused — this skill runs in a forked context and cannot stop to ask. To force a fresh pass, move the old report out of `quality_reports/` (or touch the deck so it is newer) and re-invoke.
## Step 5: Synthesize Combined Summary (reduce typed findings)
This is **fan-out → reduce** ([`orchestrator-protocol.md`](../../rules/orchestrator-protocol.md)): each agent returns `FINDING`s + a `SCORECARD` in the shared schema ([`orchestration-schemas.md`](../../references/orchestration-schemas.md)), and this step **stacks the typed scorecards** rather than re-reading each report by eye. The Overall Quality Score is the gate predicate over summed CRITICAL/MAJOR/MINOR counts. (Conditional dispatch means a skipped lens contributes no findings, not zeros to average.)
Only include sections for agents that actually ran.
```markdown
# Slide Excellence Review: [Filename]
**File:** [path]
**Type:** [Beamer / Quarto / Markdown]
**Detected:** TikZ=N | pair=[path or none] | R=[yes/no]
**Agents spawned:** [A, B, C, D, G] (skipped: E [no pair], F [no R])
## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR]
| Dimension | Critical (`blocker`) | Major | Minor | Score/10 |
|-----------|----------|--------|-----|-----|
| Visual/Layout | | | | |
| Pedagogical | | | | |
| Proofreading | | | | |
| TikZ (if ran) | | | | |
| Substance (if ran) | | | | |
### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
### Major Issues (Next Revision)
### Recommended Next Steps
```
## Step 6: Report Token/Time Budget
After completion, print what was spawned:
```
Spawned N agents[; token usage: actual figure, if the harness reports it].
For cost-conscious reviews, run individual subagent skills directly
(/proofread, /visual-audit, /pedagogy-review).
```
## Flag Reference
| Flag | Effect |
|---|---|
| `--skip-substance` | Don't spawn Agent G (domain-reviewer). Useful if you haven't customized domain-reviewer.md yet. |
| `--acknowledge-template-domain-reviewer` | Proceed with the un-customized domain-reviewer anyway; you accept that the substance review will be generic. |
| `--fast` | Spawn a single synthesis agent reading the file directly, rather than parallel subagents. Cheaper but less thorough. |
## Quality Score Rubric
| Score | Critical (`blocker`) | Major | Meaning |
|-------|----------|--------|---------|
| Excellent | 0 | 0 | Ready to present |
| Good | 0 | 1-5 | Revise the majors first (the gate reads this as REVISE) |
| Needs Work | 0-5 | 6+, or any with criticals | Significant revision — the gate blocks while any critical remains |
| Poor | 6+ | any | Major restructuring |
Any critical finding blocks, whatever the other counts — the same gate predicate as [`orchestration-schemas.md`](../../references/orchestration-schemas.md) §3.
## Why conditional dispatch matters
A reviewer that cannot produce useful output costs tokens and trust: `tikz-reviewer` on a TikZ-free deck returns nothing, `quarto-critic` without a counterpart file has no pair to compare, and an uncustomized `domain-reviewer` returns generic "are assumptions stated?" feedback that authors learn to ignore. Spawn only the lenses the file can use.
## Findings are validated, not just written (v2.5)
This skill's reviewers emit findings under the machine-checked contract in
[`finding-schema.json`](../../references/finding-schema.json). Reports are JSON **arrays**.
**Smoke-test the harness before spending review effort** — a run that fans out reviewers and
then cannot write a valid report has wasted the whole pass:
```bash
echo '[]' | python3 scripts/validate-findings.py
```
Reviewer agents are read-only, so **this skill writes the files**. For each reviewer's final
response: save the prose report to this skill's report path for that reviewer, copy its closing fenced `json` block
to a scratch file, and fill the ids while validating:
```bash
python3 scripts/validate-findings.py --fill-ids block.json > <report>.json.tmp \
&& mv <report>.json.tmp <report>.json || rm -f <report>.json.tmp # exit 0 required; a failed run keeps no file
python3 scripts/validate-findings.py --check-quotes <report>.json # each quote must be the file's own text (orchestration-schemas.md §1)
```
A reviewer that returned no `json` block, or a block that does not validate, has not reviewed:
re-dispatch it once with the validator's error text, then report the lens as missing rather
than reducing without it.
What the contract forces, and why:
- **`rule`** — the documented rule or standard violated. A finding citing no rule is an
opinion, and opinions do not gate a commit.
- **`failing_case`** — a concrete configuration under which the claim breaks, or the exact
missing hypothesis. *"This could be clearer"* does not validate.
- **`id = sha1("<file>:<line>:<locus>")`** — deterministic, so dedup across rounds is
exact and the two-strikes rule is checkable rather than eyeballed.
- **`mechanical`** — `true` only for fixes that cannot change a result (typo, cross-reference,
formatting, label). **Never** for an estimand, assumption, specification, inference
procedure, sample definition, or reporting language: those return to the researcher.
Apply the **per-lens evidence burdens** and the **"does NOT count" filters** in
[`orchestration-schemas.md` §7](../../references/orchestration-schemas.md) *before*
verification, so known false alarms never reach the judge. The verifier pass is
**refute-biased** and sets each finding's `verdict` (reviewers leave it unset): only `verdict: "confirmed"` findings ship; anything it cannot ground is
dropped, not downgraded to a warning.
© pedrohcgs · MIT · pedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflow