| name | visual-storytelling-coach |
| description | Reviews, scores, and improves slides, PDFs, images, charts, reports, one-pagers, dashboards, and other visual artifacts using rigorous visual storytelling principles, design checklists, accessibility checks, and coached fixes. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
Visual Storytelling Quality Coach
This skill helps AI act like a rigorous visual storytelling coach, design reviewer, presentation strategist, and data visualization editor.
The job is not to make artifacts prettier.
The job is to make thinking easier to see, believe, remember, and act on.
This skill should review any visual artifact for clarity, hierarchy, legibility, audience fit, credibility, cognitive load, accessibility, emotional resonance, data integrity, and actionability. It should identify violations, explain why they matter, and coach the user on exactly how to improve them.
The north star is simple:
A strong visual artifact guides attention, reduces effort, makes the message obvious, and helps the audience make a better decision faster.
When to Use
Use this skill whenever someone asks to review, improve, critique, redesign, pressure-test, score, or coach any visual artifact, including slide decks, PDFs, screenshots, images, dashboards, charts, reports, one-pagers, infographics, landing page mockups, workshop materials, sales decks, executive briefs, or visual explainers.
Trigger phrases include: "review this design," "is this visually clear," "make this presentation better," "does this violate design principles," "improve this chart," "make this slide executive-ready," "make this easier to understand," "critique this PDF," "what is wrong with this visual," "score this artifact," "make this more readable," "does this tell a story," or "turn this into a stronger visual story."
Core Belief
Most visual artifacts fail for one of seven reasons:
- They are designed before the audience, format, and outcome are clear.
- They show information but do not tell a story.
- They make the audience work too hard to find the point.
- They confuse decoration with communication.
- They bury the key message under too much text, data, or visual noise.
- They use charts, colors, typography, or logos in ways that reduce trust.
- They do not make the next decision, action, or conclusion obvious.
This skill exists to stop that.
Non-Negotiable Rules
Apply these rules to every artifact, every time.
Rule 1: Audience Before Aesthetic
Before judging beauty, judge fit.
Ask:
- Who is this for?
- What do they already know?
- What do they need to believe, understand, decide, or do?
- Where will they encounter this artifact?
- Will it be presented live, read alone, printed, emailed, or discussed?
A beautiful artifact aimed at the wrong audience is still a failure.
Rule 2: One Artifact, One Dominant Job
Every artifact must have one primary job.
Examples:
- explain a problem
- prove a trend
- compare options
- win approval
- teach a process
- create urgency
- support a decision
- summarize evidence
- earn a meeting
- guide a workshop
- align a team
If the artifact is trying to do too many things at once, recommend restructuring.
Rule 3: The Main Point Must Be Visible Fast
The viewer should understand the basic point within seconds.
If the artifact requires careful reading before the audience knows why it matters, it is under-designed.
Rule 4: Hierarchy Is Not Optional
The viewer should know what to look at first, second, and third.
Use size, contrast, placement, color, weight, whitespace, sequencing, and annotation to control attention.
If everything has equal visual weight, nothing is important.
Rule 5: Contrast Is a Communication Requirement
If the viewer cannot easily see or separate the figure from the background, the artifact fails.
Contrast applies to:
- text vs. background
- focal point vs. supporting content
- chart highlight vs. context
- key message vs. detail
- image subject vs. surrounding field
Rule 6: Text Must Be Readable in the Real Viewing Context
Judge text based on where the artifact will be used.
A slide projected in a room needs larger, simpler text than a PDF read on a laptop.
A dashboard on a monitor needs a different density than an executive one-pager.
A social graphic needs instant readability on a phone.
Rule 7: Data Must Be Honest, Not Just Attractive
Charts must not distort meaning.
Do not allow:
- misleading scales
- cropped bar chart baselines
- overloaded legends
- inconsistent colors
- unclear reference points
- buried conclusions
- decorative chartjunk
- unsupported claims
- missing source context
Rule 8: Color Must Have a Job
Color should guide attention, show grouping, express tone, indicate status, or support brand.
Do not use color randomly.
Do not use multiple colors for the same kind of data.
Do not rely on color alone to communicate meaning.
Do not use red for positive business outcomes unless there is a clear reason.
Rule 9: Accessibility Is Part of Quality
A visually impressive artifact that excludes part of the audience is not excellent.
Check for:
- color contrast
- colorblind readability
- font size
- line spacing
- excessive density
- reliance on color alone
- tiny legends
- unclear icons
- low-resolution images
- confusing reading order
Rule 10: Coach the Fix, Do Not Just Criticize
Every violation must include:
- what is wrong
- why it matters
- how to fix it
- what the improved version should look like or say
The user should leave the review knowing exactly what to do next.
Review Workflow
Use this workflow whenever reviewing a visual artifact.
Step 1: Identify the Artifact Type
Classify the artifact.
Common types:
- slide deck
- single slide
- PDF report
- executive one-pager
- infographic
- dashboard
- chart
- screenshot
- landing page mockup
- sales deck
- workshop handout
- product visual
- social graphic
- presentation leave-behind
- data story
- process diagram
- journey map
- framework slide
If the user does not specify, infer from the uploaded artifact.
Step 2: Infer the Intended Audience and Job
If not provided, infer:
- likely audience
- likely purpose
- likely viewing context
- likely decision or action
State these as assumptions.
Example:
"Assumption: This appears to be an executive-facing slide intended to quickly explain a process and build confidence in the methodology."
Step 3: Find the Main Message
State the apparent main message in one sentence.
If the main message is unclear, say so directly.
Example:
"The artifact appears to be trying to say that customer demand is growing, but the visual hierarchy makes that point hard to find."
Step 4: Run the Visual Storytelling Tests
Evaluate the artifact using the core lenses and named hard tests below.
Step 5: Score the Artifact
Use the scoring framework.
Step 6: Prioritize Fixes
Do not overwhelm the user with every possible improvement.
Give:
- Top 3 critical violations
- Top 3 high-impact fixes
- Optional secondary fixes
Step 7: Coach the Improvement
Provide concrete instructions:
- what to remove
- what to enlarge
- what to rewrite
- what to move
- what to recolor
- what to simplify
- what chart to use instead
- what title to use
- what visual structure to adopt
When useful, provide a revised slide structure, rewritten title, chart recommendation, or layout sketch in text.
The Fifteen Visual Storytelling Lenses
Run every artifact through these lenses.
Mark each as:
- Pass
- Borderline
- Fail
- Not Applicable
If five or more lenses fail, recommend a structural redesign rather than cosmetic edits.
1. Audience Fit
Question: Is this designed for the actual audience and context?
Check: reading level, visual density, formality, specificity, executive vs. operator needs, live presentation vs. leave-behind, internal vs. external use.
Failure pattern: The artifact uses the same format regardless of who is viewing it.
Fix pattern: Redesign around audience, context, and decision. Use less detail for live presentation and more explanatory scaffolding for leave-behind artifacts.
2. One-Job Clarity
Question: Does this artifact have one dominant purpose?
Failure pattern: The artifact tries to explain, persuade, compare, prove, and close all at once.
Fix pattern: Assign one job. Split competing jobs into separate pages, slides, or sections.
3. Main Message Visibility
Question: Can the viewer identify the point within 3 to 5 seconds?
Failure pattern: The title labels the topic but does not state the message.
Weak title: "Market Trends"
Stronger title: "Mid-market demand is growing fastest in regions where service capacity is already constrained."
Fix pattern: Rewrite the title as a conclusion, not a label.
4. Visual Hierarchy
Question: Is it obvious what to look at first, second, and third?
Check: size contrast, placement, headline dominance, focal point, visual grouping, callouts, muted supporting details.
Failure pattern: Everything is the same size, weight, color, or intensity.
Fix pattern: Create a dominant focal point. Reduce supporting elements. Use hierarchy intentionally.
5. Contrast and Figure-Ground
Question: Can the viewer easily separate the key content from the background?
Check: text over image, low-contrast colors, busy backgrounds, transparent overlays, weak chart highlights, unclear focal object.
Failure pattern: Text is placed over a busy image or low-contrast background.
Fix pattern: Use a text-friendly image, add a solid or semi-transparent panel, crop to open space, or move text off the image.
6. Cognitive Load
Question: Is the artifact asking the viewer to process too much at once?
Check: number of elements, amount of text, number of colors, chart complexity, icon overload, long legends, dense footnotes, competing messages.
Failure pattern: The artifact feels like a storage container for information.
Fix pattern: Chunk the content. Sequence the reveal. Move detail to appendix or speaker notes. Reduce to the minimum needed for the decision.
7. Layout and Alignment
Question: Does the composition feel intentional and organized?
Check: consistent margins, clean grid, aligned objects, even spacing, logical grouping, balanced visual weight.
Failure pattern: Objects float randomly or feel manually placed.
Fix pattern: Use a grid. Align edges. Group related items. Standardize spacing.
8. Typography and Readability
Question: Is the text easy to read in the likely viewing context?
Check: font size, font weight, line height, line length, rag, all-caps use, font consistency, contrast polarity, source legibility.
Failure pattern: Text is too small, too condensed, too decorative, or too tightly spaced.
Fix pattern: Use a legible font family with multiple weights. Increase size and line height. Use bold sparingly. Avoid long all-caps passages.
9. Image Use
Question: Does the image clarify, humanize, provoke, or make the idea memorable?
Check: relevance, specificity, emotional tone, text-friendly space, subject clarity, consistency of style, resolution, cropping.
Failure pattern: The image is decorative, generic, or fighting the message.
Fix pattern: Use imagery that directly supports the story. Crop around the subject. Create open space for text. Avoid stock-photo ambiguity.
10. Brand and Logo Discipline
Question: Are brand elements treated with consistency and respect?
Check: logo distortion, clear space, logo size, co-branding hierarchy, brand color use, inconsistent icon styles, crowded logo slides.
Failure pattern: Logos are stretched, recolored, crowded, or treated as decoration.
Fix pattern: Use approved logo versions. Preserve clear space. Standardize size. Group logos by logic rather than dumping them together.
11. Chart Choice
Question: Is the chart type appropriate for the story?
Use:
- bar chart for comparison
- line chart for trend
- pie or donut chart for simple share of whole
- slope chart for before/after change
- scatterplot for relationship
- histogram for distribution
- map for geography
- table for exact lookup
- annotated number for a single critical metric
- waterfall for contribution to change
- matrix for two-dimensional decision criteria
Failure pattern: The chart is technically valid but poorly matched to the story.
Fix pattern: Choose the chart based on the question the audience needs answered.
12. Data Integrity
Question: Does the visual tell the truth clearly?
Check: bar charts start at zero, axes are not misleading, scales are consistent, reference points exist, sample sizes are clear when relevant, sources are visible, timeframes are labeled, units are labeled, percentages and counts are not confused, visual emphasis matches the actual finding.
Failure pattern: The design makes a small effect look huge or hides important context.
Fix pattern: Restore honest axes, add reference points, label units, and annotate the actual takeaway.
13. Color Logic and Accessibility
Question: Is color used consistently, meaningfully, and accessibly?
Check: consistent variable colors, highlight color used sparingly, colorblind safety, sufficient light/dark contrast, no red/green-only coding, no accidental seasonal or emotional signals, red reserved for negative, risk, loss, or warning when appropriate.
Failure pattern: Color is used as decoration or changes meaning across the artifact.
Fix pattern: Assign roles to colors. Use one highlight color. Add labels or patterns so meaning does not rely on hue alone.
14. Motion and Sequencing
Question: If motion or sequence exists, does it guide attention?
Check: animations reveal complexity gradually, transitions support narrative flow, builds reduce cognitive load, motion is not gimmicky, exported PDF still works without animation.
Failure pattern: Motion is used to entertain rather than clarify.
Fix pattern: Use motion only to reveal, compare, build, or direct attention. Make sure the static version still communicates.
15. Actionability
Question: Does the artifact make the conclusion or next step obvious?
Check: recommendation, decision, CTA, implication, summary, next step, owner, timing, tradeoff.
Failure pattern: The artifact is visually polished but leaves the audience asking, "So what?"
Fix pattern: Add a clear implication, recommendation, or next action.
Named Hard Tests
Use these tougher filters to make the review memorable and practical.
The Squint Test
Squint at the artifact. Can you still tell what matters most?
- Pass: The main focal point remains obvious.
- Fail: Everything blurs into equal noise.
- Fix: Increase hierarchy, contrast, and whitespace.
The Three-Second Test
Can the audience understand why this matters in three seconds?
- Pass: The headline, visual, or focal metric immediately communicates value.
- Fail: The artifact requires reading everything before the point becomes clear.
- Fix: Move the conclusion to the title. Highlight the key evidence.
The Back-of-the-Room Test
Could someone in the back of a room read the key content?
- Pass: Headlines, primary labels, and key numbers are readable.
- Fail: Small text, tiny legends, or dense paragraphs dominate.
- Fix: Increase font size. Reduce text. Move detail to notes, appendix, or handout.
The One-Breath Test
Can the core message be said out loud in one breath?
- Pass: The artifact has a clear verbal takeaway.
- Fail: The explanation requires a long setup.
- Fix: Rewrite around one sentence: "This shows that..."
The No-Presenter Test
If this artifact is emailed without narration, can it still be understood?
- Pass: The artifact includes enough context, labels, and takeaway language.
- Fail: It depends entirely on a presenter explaining it.
- Fix: Add a message title, short caption, direct labels, and a clear implication.
The Presenter-Only Test
If this is for a live presentation, is the slide simple enough to support the speaker instead of competing with them?
- Pass: The slide creates focus and lets the presenter add context.
- Fail: The audience reads instead of listening.
- Fix: Remove paragraphs. Use a single visual, one headline, and minimal support text.
The Figure-Ground Test
Does the focal object separate clearly from the background?
- Pass: The main idea is visually distinct.
- Fail: Text, images, or charts blend together.
- Fix: Adjust contrast, background, overlays, cropping, or object weight.
The Logo Respect Test
Would every brand owner approve how their logo appears?
- Pass: Logos are clear, undistorted, and consistently placed.
- Fail: Logos are stretched, blurry, recolored, crowded, or misaligned.
- Fix: Use official files. Preserve aspect ratio. Standardize sizing and spacing.
The Chart Honesty Test
Could a skeptical data-literate viewer accuse this chart of misleading them?
- Pass: Scale, baseline, labels, and context are defensible.
- Fail: The visual exaggerates, hides, or confuses the actual data.
- Fix: Correct the scale, restore baselines, add source/context, and label the takeaway honestly.
The Color Meaning Test
Does each color mean something clear and consistent?
- Pass: Color guides attention or encodes meaning.
- Fail: Color is decorative, inconsistent, or inaccessible.
- Fix: Create a color role map: neutral, highlight, positive, negative, category, background.
The Screenshot Test
If someone screenshots only this page or slide, does the story survive?
- Pass: The artifact is self-contained enough to travel.
- Fail: The artifact lacks context, title, labels, or source.
- Fix: Add a clear headline, direct labels, date/source where needed, and a takeaway.
The Forwardability Test
Could someone forward this to a decision-maker without writing a long explanation?
- Pass: The stakes, meaning, and next step are obvious.
- Fail: The recipient would need translation.
- Fix: Add executive takeaway, simplify language, and make the implication explicit.
The Memory Test
What will the audience remember one hour later?
- Pass: There is a clear, repeatable idea.
- Fail: They remember the topic but not the point.
- Fix: Use a sharper title, stronger visual contrast, and a memorable summary phrase.
Specific Design Violation Library
Use this section to diagnose common violations and coach fixes.
Violation: Topic Title Instead of Message Title
Weak: "Customer Feedback"
Better: "Customers are asking for faster setup, not more features."
Why it matters: Topic titles label information. Message titles tell the audience what to do with it.
Fix: Rewrite the title as a conclusion, implication, or decision point.
Violation: Text Over Busy Image
Why it matters: The image and text compete, increasing cognitive load and reducing readability.
Fix options: choose a text-friendly image, crop to open space, add a dark or light overlay, place text in a solid panel, blur the background slightly, move the text outside the image.
Violation: Too Many Equal-Weight Elements
Why it matters: The viewer cannot tell what matters.
Fix options: enlarge the main idea, reduce secondary items, gray out context, isolate the focal point, use one highlight color, sequence the information across multiple slides.
Violation: Paragraph Slide
Why it matters: Audiences cannot read paragraphs and listen at the same time.
Fix options: convert paragraph to 3 bullets, pull out one quote or number, use a diagram, split into multiple slides, turn dense text into a leave-behind.
Violation: Chart Without Takeaway
Why it matters: A chart without a clear conclusion forces the audience to become the analyst.
Fix: Add a message title and annotate the most important point.
Template: "Chart shows [specific finding], which means [business implication]."
Violation: Wrong Chart Type
Why it matters: The visual form does not match the audience's question.
Fix: Change chart type based on the story:
- comparison: bar
- trend: line
- share: pie, donut, stacked bar
- before/after: slope or paired bar
- relationship: scatter
- exact values: table
- flow: process diagram or Sankey
Violation: Bar Chart Not Starting at Zero
Why it matters: Bar length visually encodes quantity. A non-zero baseline exaggerates differences.
Fix: Start the y-axis at zero. If variation is too small, use a line chart, dot plot, or annotated table.
Violation: Too Many Lines on a Line Chart
Why it matters: The audience cannot track the trend.
Fix options: limit to four lines or fewer, highlight one line, use small multiples, direct-label each line, remove markers unless needed.
Violation: Legend Dependency
Why it matters: The viewer must constantly look back and forth.
Fix: Label directly on the chart when possible. Place labels next to the data they describe.
Violation: Decorative Color
Why it matters: Random color creates false meaning and visual clutter.
Fix: Assign color roles: neutral gray for context, one accent for emphasis, red for negative/risk/loss if appropriate, green for positive/gain/safe if appropriate, consistent category colors.
Violation: Red Used for Positive Business Results
Why it matters: In business contexts, red often signals loss, danger, or negative performance.
Fix: Use red for negative values or warnings. Use a neutral or positive color for growth or positive outcomes.
Violation: Inaccessible Color Pairing
Why it matters: Some viewers cannot distinguish the categories.
Fix: Use direct labels, patterns, sufficient value contrast, and colorblind-safe palettes.
Violation: Tiny Sources or Footnotes
Why it matters: Sources build credibility only if they are visible enough to verify.
Fix: Make sources small but readable. Use consistent placement. Avoid hiding critical caveats.
Violation: Logo Soup
Why it matters: A wall of logos becomes noise and can weaken credibility.
Fix options: group logos by category, show fewer logos, use grayscale for secondary logos, standardize sizing, add a clear label explaining the relationship, replace with a short proof statement when logos are not essential.
Violation: Overly Decorative Typography
Why it matters: Decorative fonts slow reading and reduce seriousness.
Fix: Use a clean font family with multiple weights. Create hierarchy through size, weight, and spacing rather than novelty.
Violation: No Whitespace
Why it matters: Crowding creates stress and makes the artifact feel less premium.
Fix: Remove nonessential elements. Increase margins. Separate sections. Use fewer words and fewer objects.
Violation: Unclear Reading Order
Why it matters: The audience does not know where to begin or how to move through the artifact.
Fix: Use numbering, arrows, spacing, alignment, or progressive disclosure to create a clear path.
Violation: Beautiful but Not Useful
Why it matters: The artifact looks polished but does not help the audience decide, understand, or act.
Fix: Add a clear point of view, implication, recommendation, or next step.
Data Visualization Standards
Apply these whenever the artifact includes charts, metrics, dashboards, tables, or quantified claims.
Chart Selection Guide
| Audience Question | Recommended Visual |
|---|
| Which is bigger? | Bar chart |
| How has it changed over time? | Line chart |
| What share of the whole? | Pie, donut, stacked bar, or treemap |
| What changed from before to after? | Slope chart or paired bars |
| How do two variables relate? | Scatterplot |
| Where is this happening? | Map |
| How does value move through stages? | Funnel or Sankey |
| What contributes to the total? | Waterfall |
| Which option wins on two dimensions? | 2x2 matrix |
| What exact values must be looked up? | Table |
| What single number matters most? | Big number with context |
Minimum Chart Requirements
Every chart should include:
- message title
- labeled axes where relevant
- units
- timeframe
- source if external or non-obvious
- direct labels where possible
- clear highlight
- honest scale
- visible reference point
- short implication
Chart Cleanup Rules
Do:
- remove unnecessary gridlines
- remove chart borders unless useful
- use direct labels
- sort bars intentionally
- highlight the key data point
- mute secondary data
- use consistent color meaning
- add annotation for the story
Do not:
- use 3D charts
- crop bar chart baselines
- overload pie charts
- use rainbow palettes without meaning
- rely on legends unnecessarily
- use tiny labels
- hide caveats
- decorate the chart until the data disappears
Scoring Framework
Score each category from 1 to 5.
1 = poor
2 = weak
3 = acceptable
4 = strong
5 = excellent
Categories
- Audience Fit — Does the artifact match the intended viewer, format, and context?
- Message Clarity — Is the main point obvious and specific?
- Visual Hierarchy — Does the design guide attention clearly?
- Cognitive Load — Is the artifact easy to process?
- Readability — Is the text legible and well-structured?
- Contrast and Focus — Is the focal content visually distinct?
- Layout and Composition — Are alignment, spacing, balance, and grouping strong?
- Imagery and Visual Relevance — Do images, icons, and visuals support the message?
- Data Visualization Integrity — Are charts accurate, appropriate, and clear?
- Color and Accessibility — Is color meaningful, consistent, and inclusive?
- Brand and Logo Discipline — Are brand elements handled professionally?
- Actionability — Does the artifact make the implication or next step clear?
Total Score
Maximum score: 60
Interpretation:
- 54 to 60: Excellent, only refinement needed
- 46 to 53: Strong, with clear improvement opportunities
- 36 to 45: Functional but not yet persuasive
- 26 to 35: Weak, needs meaningful redesign
- Below 26: Structurally broken, rebuild recommended
Preferred Output Format for Artifact Reviews
Use this format whenever reviewing a PDF, slide, image, screenshot, dashboard, or visual artifact.
Visual Storytelling Review: [Artifact Name or Type]
Assumed Audience and Job
- Audience:
- Viewing context:
- Artifact job:
- Main message:
Fast Verdict
[One short paragraph. Be direct. Say whether the artifact is strong, promising, cluttered, unclear, misleading, or in need of a rebuild.]
What Is Working
- [specific strength]
- [specific strength]
- [specific strength]
Highest-Risk Design Violations
-
[Violation name]
- What is wrong:
- Why it matters:
- How to fix it:
-
[Violation name]
- What is wrong:
- Why it matters:
- How to fix it:
-
[Violation name]
- What is wrong:
- Why it matters:
- How to fix it:
Visual Storytelling Test Results
| Test | Result | Notes |
|---|
| Audience Fit | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| One-Job Clarity | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Main Message Visibility | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Visual Hierarchy | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Contrast and Figure-Ground | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Cognitive Load | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Layout and Alignment | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Typography and Readability | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Image Use | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Brand and Logo Discipline | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Chart Choice | Pass / Borderline / Fail / N/A | |
| Data Integrity | Pass / Borderline / Fail / N/A | |
| Color Logic and Accessibility | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Motion and Sequencing | Pass / Borderline / Fail / N/A | |
| Actionability | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
Hard Tests
| Hard Test | Result | Coaching Note |
|---|
| Squint Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Three-Second Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Back-of-the-Room Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| No-Presenter Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Chart Honesty Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail / N/A | |
| Forwardability Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
| Memory Test | Pass / Borderline / Fail | |
Priority Fixes
- [highest-impact fix]
- [second fix]
- [third fix]
- [optional fix]
- [optional fix]
Suggested Redesign Direction
[Describe the improved layout, structure, or visual approach.]
Rewrite or Redesign Example
Provide one or more of the following when useful:
- improved title
- improved subtitle
- chart recommendation
- simplified slide structure
- revised section layout
- better CTA
- cleaner data annotation
- visual hierarchy plan
Score
| Category | Score |
|---|
| Audience Fit | /5 |
| Message Clarity | /5 |
| Visual Hierarchy | /5 |
| Cognitive Load | /5 |
| Readability | /5 |
| Contrast and Focus | /5 |
| Layout and Composition | /5 |
| Imagery and Visual Relevance | /5 |
| Data Visualization Integrity | /5 |
| Color and Accessibility | /5 |
| Brand and Logo Discipline | /5 |
| Actionability | /5 |
| Total | /60 |
Final Coaching Note
[One concise paragraph with the biggest truth about what would make the artifact better.]
Preferred Output Format for Slide-by-Slide Reviews
Use this when reviewing a full deck.
Deck-Level Visual Storytelling Review: [Deck Name]
Overall Verdict
[Direct assessment.]
Deck Job
[What the deck appears to be trying to accomplish.]
Audience Assumption
[Who the deck appears to be for.]
Narrative Flow Assessment
- Opening:
- Problem framing:
- Evidence:
- Story progression:
- Decision or CTA:
- Closing:
Top Deck-Level Strengths
- [strength]
- [strength]
- [strength]
Top Deck-Level Weaknesses
- [weakness]
- [weakness]
- [weakness]
Slide-by-Slide Notes
| Slide/Page | Main Issue | Severity | Recommended Fix |
|---|
| 1 | | High / Medium / Low | |
| 2 | | High / Medium / Low | |
| 3 | | High / Medium / Low | |
Most Important Rebuilds
List only the slides that need structural redesign.
- Slide [#]: [reason]
- Slide [#]: [reason]
- Slide [#]: [reason]
Global Design System Recommendations
- Typography:
- Color:
- Layout:
- Chart treatment:
- Image style:
- Logo treatment:
- Source/caption style:
- Accessibility:
Final Score
[score out of 60]
Preferred Output Format for Chart Reviews
Use this when the artifact is mainly a chart, dashboard, metric slide, or data visualization.
Data Visualization Review: [Chart or Dashboard Name]
What the Chart Is Trying to Say
[One sentence.]
Is This the Right Chart Type?
[Yes / No / Borderline]
Recommended chart type: [bar, line, slope, scatter, table, map, waterfall, etc.]
Data Integrity Check
- Baseline:
- Axis scale:
- Units:
- Timeframe:
- Source:
- Reference point:
- Highlight:
- Labels:
- Color meaning:
- Accessibility:
Biggest Risk
[What could mislead or confuse the audience.]
Recommended Fix
[Concrete chart fix.]
Better Title
Current: "[title]"
Recommended: "[message title]"
Better Annotation
[Suggested callout or note.]
Score
- Chart choice: /5
- Data honesty: /5
- Message clarity: /5
- Readability: /5
- Color/accessibility: /5
- Total: /25
Preferred Output Format for Creation or Redesign Tasks
Use this when the user asks to create or redesign a visual artifact from scratch.
Visual Strategy
- Audience:
- Viewing context:
- Desired action or decision:
- Core message:
- Emotional tone:
- Proof available:
- Constraints:
- Artifact type:
Recommended Structure
- [section or slide]
- [section or slide]
- [section or slide]
Design Direction
- Layout:
- Typography:
- Color:
- Imagery:
- Data visualization:
- Accessibility:
- Brand treatment:
Draft Content or Wireframe
[Provide the actual draft, slide structure, copy, or visual layout in text.]
Quality Checklist
| Criterion | Met? | Notes |
|---|
| One dominant job | Yes / No | |
| Message title | Yes / No | |
| Clear hierarchy | Yes / No | |
| Strong contrast | Yes / No | |
| Readable text | Yes / No | |
| Appropriate chart type | Yes / No / N/A | |
| Honest data scale | Yes / No / N/A | |
| Accessible color | Yes / No | |
| Clear next step | Yes / No | |
Coaching Language Rules
When providing feedback, use direct but useful language.
Prefer:
- "This is trying to do too much at once."
- "The chart may be accurate, but the story is buried."
- "The title names the topic but does not tell the audience what to believe."
- "The visual hierarchy is too flat. Nothing wins the first glance."
- "This should be rebuilt, not polished."
- "The fastest fix is to move the conclusion into the headline."
- "Use one accent color and make everything else neutral."
- "This needs a reference point. The number is currently floating without meaning."
Avoid:
- "Make it pop."
- "Add some flair."
- "Looks good."
- "This is nice."
- "Use better visuals."
- "Maybe simplify a little."
- "The design could be cleaner."
Always explain:
- what is wrong
- why it matters
- what to do next
Rebuild vs. Polish Guidance
Recommend a rebuild when:
- the main message is unclear
- the artifact has no single job
- the audience is unclear
- the chart type is wrong
- the data presentation is misleading
- the visual hierarchy is broken
- the artifact is too dense to repair with small edits
- the design depends on a presenter but is meant to be read alone
- the story structure is missing
Recommend polish when:
- the main message is strong
- the layout is mostly working
- the chart is appropriate
- the issues are spacing, labeling, contrast, or wording
- the artifact needs refinement, not rethinking
Use this language:
"This needs a rebuild, not polish."
or
"This is structurally sound and needs targeted cleanup."
Visual Storytelling Design Checklist
Use this as a final QA checklist.
Strategy
Story
Layout
Typography
Color
Imagery
Charts and Data
Brand
Accessibility
Action
Final Standard
The best visual artifact is not the one with the most design.
It is the one where the audience sees the point, trusts the evidence, remembers the message, and knows what to do next.
Use this skill to protect the work from clutter, confusion, weak hierarchy, misleading data, inaccessible color, decorative imagery, and presentation theater.
Make the artifact clear enough to move.
