| name | video-review |
| description | Review and analyze an uploaded video or its transcript — identify strengths, weaknesses, pacing issues, messaging clarity, and suggest improvements. Use when a user uploads a video for feedback or asks to analyze an existing recording. |
Video Review & Analysis
Scope
Analyzing an existing video or its transcript to provide actionable feedback:
- Reviewing a user's recorded presentation before publishing
- Analyzing a webinar recording for improvements
- Transcribing and critiquing a conference talk
- Extracting a structure/outline from an existing video
- Comparing against best practices for the session type
Process
- Receive the video/audio — user uploads file
- Transcribe — use
start_transcription if not already transcribed
- Read transcript — use
read_file to access the full text
- Analyze — apply the relevant framework based on session type
- Deliver feedback — structured, actionable, prioritized
Analysis Framework
Structure Analysis
- Is there a clear opening hook? How long before the core content?
- Are the key messages identifiable? How many? (ideal: 3-5)
- Is there a logical flow? Does each section build on the previous?
- Is there a clear conclusion with takeaways?
- Are transitions between sections smooth?
Engagement Analysis
- Are there pattern interrupts? How frequent?
- Does the speaker ask questions or invite participation?
- Are there stories, anecdotes, or real-world examples?
- Is there variety (demo, slides, whiteboard, discussion)?
- Are there moments of surprise, humor, or emotion?
Messaging Clarity
- Can you summarize the talk in one sentence? If not, it's unclear.
- Are technical concepts explained before being used?
- Is jargon defined or avoided?
- Are analogies used effectively?
- Is the "so what?" clear for each section?
Pacing & Timing
- Overall pace: too fast? too slow? uneven?
- Are there unnecessary repetitions or tangents?
- Time allocation: is the most important content getting the most time?
- Are there long stretches without visual changes or interaction?
- Does the ending feel rushed or drawn out?
Delivery (if video available)
- Voice: monotone vs. varied? Volume appropriate?
- Filler words: "um", "uh", "so", "like" — frequency?
- Eye contact: reading slides vs. engaging audience?
- Energy level: flat? appropriate? too intense?
- Body language: open and confident?
Slide/Visual Quality (if applicable)
- Text density — too much text per slide?
- Readability — font size, contrast, clutter?
- Are visuals meaningful or decorative?
- Are code examples readable?
- Is there a consistent visual style?
Feedback Delivery Format
Structure feedback as:
📊 Overall Assessment
- One-line summary
- Rating: ⭐ (1-5) per dimension
- Top 3 strengths
- Top 3 areas for improvement
✅ What Works Well
- Specific moments/quotes that are effective
- Structural choices that work
- Engagement techniques used well
🔧 Suggestions for Improvement
Prioritized list:
- High impact, easy fix — do these first
- High impact, harder — worth the effort
- Nice to have — if time permits
For each suggestion:
- What the issue is (with timestamp/quote reference)
- Why it matters
- Specific recommendation for how to fix it
📝 Restructured Outline (optional)
If the structure needs significant rework, propose an alternative outline showing what a better version could look like.
Analysis By Session Type
Apply different emphasis based on what kind of session is being reviewed:
| Session Type | Primary Focus |
|---|
| Conference talk | Structure, messaging clarity, time management |
| Workshop recording | Exercise clarity, pacing, participant inclusion |
| Webinar | Engagement (high dropout risk), visual variety |
| Internal presentation | Actionability, relevance to audience, conciseness |
| YouTube video | Hook, retention, thumbnail-worthiness, SEO |
Important Notes
- Be constructive, not harsh — the goal is improvement, not criticism
- Lead with strengths before weaknesses
- Be specific — "slide 3 has too much text" not "your slides are bad"
- Offer alternatives — don't just say what's wrong, suggest what's better
- Consider the speaker's experience level — different feedback for beginners vs. experts
- If it's in Hebrew: provide feedback in Hebrew naturally
- Reference specific transcript moments (quote the text)
- If the user plans to re-record: focus on structure and content changes
- If it's already published: focus on learnings for next time
