video-review

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

1. Receive the video/audio — user uploads file
2. Transcribe — use start_transcription if not already transcribed
3. Read transcript — use read_file to access the full text
4. Analyze — apply the relevant framework based on session type
5. 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:

1. High impact, easy fix — do these first
2. High impact, harder — worth the effort
3. 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