| name | Slide Quality Assessment |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to "analyze slide quality", "review slide", "check slide design", "optimize slide", "improve slide content", "assess slide clarity", or needs evidence-based quality evaluation using the 12-point checklist for presentation slides. |
| version | 0.1.0 |
Slide Quality Assessment
Evaluate presentation slides using evidence-based quality criteria grounded in cognitive load research, accessibility standards, and presentation best practices from TED, MIT Communication Lab, and technical conference guidelines.
Research Foundation: Quality assessment based on working memory limits (Miller's Law), David JP Phillips' cognitive load studies, WCAG accessibility standards, and analysis of effective technical presentations.
IMPORTANT: Before analyzing slides, use the Read tool to load the style guide from the plugin directory:
${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/presentation-best-practices.md
This contains the complete research-backed guidelines and validation criteria supporting the 12-point checklist.
The 12-Point Quality Checklist
Use this systematic framework to evaluate any presentation slide:
1. ✓ One Idea Per Slide (CRITICAL)
Criterion: Does the slide communicate exactly ONE central idea, finding, or question?
Why this matters:
- Prevents cognitive overload
- Maintains audience focus during narration
- Enables clear narrative progression
How to assess:
- Can slide be explained in ~90 seconds?
- Does all content support only the title's assertion?
- Are there multiple unrelated concepts?
Red flags:
- ✗ Covering multiple independent topics
- ✗ Requires >2 minutes to explain
- ✗ Content diverges from title
Fix: Split into multiple slides, one concept each
2. ✓ Meaningful Title (CRITICAL)
Criterion: Is the title an assertion (subject + verb + finding) rather than a label?
Why this matters:
- Titles act as "topic sentences"
- Reading titles in sequence tells the story
- Helps distracted viewers catch up
- Audience should understand main point from title alone
Good vs Bad:
- ❌ Bad (labels): "Results", "Background", "Performance"
- ✅ Good (assertions): "Experiment X demonstrates 2x gain", "Current solutions fail at scale"
How to assess:
- Does title state a takeaway (not just a topic)?
- Subject + verb + finding format?
- Would titles in sequence tell a coherent story?
Fix: Convert labels to complete assertions
3. ✓ Element Count ≤6 (CRITICAL)
Criterion: Total distinct elements ≤6 (bullets + images + diagrams + charts + code blocks)
Why this matters:
- Working memory: 7±2 items (Miller's Law)
-
6 elements exponentially increases cognitive load (Phillips research)
- Audience cannot process >6 simultaneous information chunks
What counts as elements:
- Each bullet point = 1
- Each image/diagram = 1
- Each code block = 1
- Each chart/graph = 1
- Nested bullets count separately
Exceptions:
- Progressive builds (v-click) revealing elements incrementally = OK
- Diagrams with integrated labels (count as 1 if cohesive)
How to assess:
Count all visual and textual chunks the audience must process simultaneously
Red flags:
- ✗ 8+ bullet points
- ✗ Multiple diagrams + bullets
- ✗ Dense content without progressive disclosure
Fix: Reduce elements, split slides, or use v-click for progressive builds
4. ✓ Word Count <50 (CRITICAL)
Criterion: Body text <50 words (excluding title)
Why this matters:
- Audience cannot read and listen simultaneously
-
50 words = audience stops listening to speaker
- Slides support speaker, not replace them
How to assess:
- Count all words excluding title
- Include bullet text, captions, labels
- Exclude code (assess separately)
Red flags:
- ✗ Full sentences in bullets
- ✗ Paragraph text
- ✗ Long explanatory captions
Fix:
- Convert sentences to phrases (3-6 words per bullet)
- Move detailed explanations to presenter notes
- Split content across multiple slides
5. ✓ Visual Element Present
Criterion: At least one visual element (diagram, chart, image, code, or graphic)
Why this matters:
- Dual-channel processing (visual + audio) improves retention
- Visuals convey complex relationships better than text
- Almost never text-only slides
Exceptions allowing text-only:
- Quote slides
- Definition slides
- Bold statements for emphasis
- Section dividers
How to assess:
Is there a diagram, chart, image, code block, or other visual?
Red flags:
- ✗ Only title + bullets
- ✗ Dense text without supporting visual
- ✗ Missed opportunity for diagram
Fix: Add mermaid diagram, chart, image, or code example
6. ✓ Font Sizes (Body ≥18pt, Heading ≥24pt)
Criterion: Body text ≥18pt, headings ≥24pt (accessibility requirement)
Why this matters:
- WCAG accessibility standards
- Readability from back of room
- Accommodates vision impairments
How to assess:
- Check Slidev theme defaults
- Verify no custom CSS reducing sizes
- Test: Can text be read from 20 feet away?
Red flags:
- ✗ Tiny code fonts (<14pt)
- ✗ Compressed text to fit content
- ✗ Caption text <16pt
Fix: Use proper font sizes, split slides if content doesn't fit
7. ✓ Contrast Ratio (≥4.5:1)
Criterion: Text contrast ≥4.5:1 for normal text, ≥3:1 for large text (>24pt)
Why this matters:
- WCAG Level AA accessibility requirement
- Readability under projection conditions
- Accommodates vision impairments
How to assess:
- Check dark text on light backgrounds (or inverse)
- Avoid: gray-on-gray, yellow-on-white, light-blue-on-white
- Test: Is text clearly readable at a glance?
Red flags:
- ✗ Low-contrast color schemes
- ✗ Light text on light backgrounds
- ✗ Colored text without sufficient contrast
Fix: Use high-contrast color pairs, test with contrast checker
8. ✓ Colorblind-Safe (Not Color-Only)
Criterion: Meaning not conveyed by color alone (use patterns, labels, shapes)
Why this matters:
- ~8% of males have color vision deficiency
- Projected colors appear differently than on screen
- Print/grayscale versions must be understandable
How to assess:
- Can information be understood in grayscale?
- Are chart lines distinguished by style (solid/dashed) not just color?
- Do diagrams use labels, not just color coding?
Red flags:
- ✗ "Green = good, red = bad" without labels
- ✗ Chart with only color-differentiated lines
- ✗ Diagrams relying solely on color
Fix: Add patterns, labels, shapes, or text alongside color
9. ✓ Standalone Comprehension
Criterion: Can viewer grasp main point from title + visual alone (without narration)?
Why this matters:
- Distracted viewers can catch up mid-presentation
- Slides work for async review
- Conclusions highlighted, not buried
How to assess:
- 5-second test: Show slide without context - is point clear?
- Does visual reinforce the title's assertion?
- Could someone skimming slides get the story?
Red flags:
- ✗ Title + content don't align
- ✗ Visual unrelated to title
- ✗ Requires full narration to understand
Fix: Strengthen title-visual connection, add clarifying labels
10. ✓ Phrases Not Sentences
Criterion: Bullets are short phrases (3-6 words), not full sentences
Why this matters:
- Prevents audience from reading ahead
- Keeps focus on speaker
- Avoids reading-while-listening conflict
- Garr Reynolds principle: slides support, don't replace speaker
Good vs Bad:
- ❌ Bad: "Kubernetes orchestrates containerized applications across a cluster of machines"
- ✅ Good: "Container orchestration across clusters"
How to assess:
Are bullets short keyword phrases or full grammatical sentences?
Red flags:
- ✗ Bullets with periods at the end
- ✗ Multi-clause sentences
- ✗ Explanatory prose in bullets
Fix: Extract keywords, move details to presenter notes
11. ✓ White Space (≥10% Margins)
Criterion: Adequate white space around content (≥10% margins, well-distributed)
Why this matters:
- Prevents claustrophobic feeling
- Improves visual hierarchy
- Directs attention to content
- Professional appearance
How to assess:
- Is content distributed across slide?
- Breathing room around elements?
- Clear visual separation?
Red flags:
- ✗ Content edge-to-edge
- ✗ Cramped, dense appearance
- ✗ Elements overlapping or too close
Fix: Reduce content, increase padding, split slides
12. ✓ Explainable in ~90 Seconds
Criterion: Slide can be presented in approximately 90 seconds (configurable)
Why this matters:
- Maintains presentation pace
- Prevents overloaded slides
- Ensures depth without overwhelm
- Standard conference timing
How to assess:
- Can you explain all content in 90 seconds?
- Does slide require lengthy explanation?
- Would you rush through material?
Red flags:
- ✗ Requires >2 minutes to cover
- ✗ Dense content needing detailed explanation
- ✗ Multiple complex points
Fix: Split slides, simplify content, move details to notes
Quality Scoring System
Score calculation: Count ✓ for each criterion met (max 12 points)
Interpretation:
- 12/12 - Excellent: Publication-ready
- 10-11/12 - Good: Minor tweaks needed
- 8-9/12 - Acceptable: Some improvements needed
- 6-7/12 - Poor: Significant revision required
- <6/12 - Critical: Complete redesign needed
Priority for fixes:
- CRITICAL violations (criteria 1-4): Must fix before presenting
- HIGH violations (criteria 5-8): Should fix for quality presentation
- MEDIUM violations (criteria 9-12): Nice to fix for polish
Analysis Output Format
When assessing a slide, provide:
## Slide [N]: [Current Title]
**Quality Score: [X/12]**
**Current State:**
- ✓/✗ One idea per slide
- ✓/✗ Meaningful title (assertion vs label)
- ✓/✗ Element count: [X] elements (target ≤6)
- ✓/✗ Word count: [Y] words (target <50)
- ✓/✗ Visual element present
- ✓/✗ Font sizes (body ≥18pt, heading ≥24pt)
- ✓/✗ Contrast ratio (≥4.5:1)
- ✓/✗ Colorblind-safe (not color-only)
- ✓/✗ Standalone comprehension (title + visual = point)
- ✓/✗ Phrases not sentences
- ✓/✗ White space (≥10% margins)
- ✓/✗ Explainable in ~90 seconds
**Critical Violations:** [List any CRITICAL criteria failures, or "None"]
**Recommendations (Priority Order):**
1. **[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM] - [Specific issue]**
- Current: [What exists now with specific examples]
- Suggested: [Concrete improvement with example]
- Why: [Research basis from criteria above]
- Impact: [Expected improvement]
2. **[Priority] - [Next issue]**
[Same structure...]
**Quick Win:** [One simple change with biggest impact]
Optimization Strategies by Issue
Reducing Element Count (>6 elements)
Tactics:
- Merge related bullets into single points
- Move supporting details to presenter notes
- Split into 2-3 simpler slides
- Use progressive builds (v-click) to reveal incrementally
Example:
- Current: 8 bullets about microservices benefits
- Fix: Keep 4 key benefits, move implementation details to notes
Reducing Word Count (>50 words)
Tactics:
- Convert full sentences to keyword phrases
- Remove articles (a, an, the)
- Use symbols/abbreviations where clear
- Move explanations to presenter notes
Example:
- Current: "Kubernetes provides automated deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications"
- Fix: "Automated container deployment & scaling"
Creating Meaningful Titles (Label → Assertion)
Tactics:
- Add verb + finding to label
- State the conclusion, not the category
- Make title reveal the "so what?"
Examples:
- "Results" → "Response time improved 3x with caching"
- "Background" → "Current solutions fail under high load"
- "Architecture" → "Microservices enable independent scaling"
Adding Visual Elements
When to add what:
- Process/workflow → Mermaid flowchart
- Architecture → Mermaid component diagram
- Data comparison → Chart/graph
- Concepts → Icon or stock photo
- Code behavior → Code snippet with highlights
Tip: Use visual-design skill for diagram creation
Converting Sentences to Phrases
Pattern:
- Identify the core noun phrase
- Remove helping verbs, articles
- Keep 3-6 words maximum
Examples:
- "The system automatically scales based on traffic" → "Auto-scaling based on traffic"
- "We implemented caching to improve performance" → "Caching improves performance"
Edge Cases & Exceptions
Slides That Don't Follow Standard Rules
Title slides:
- Skip word count limit
- Focus on visual impact
- Branding/conference info acceptable
Code slides:
- Check syntax highlighting
- Verify relevant line selection (not full files)
- Ensure <15 lines per block
- OK if text-heavy (code is visual)
Data slides:
- Chart clarity most important
- One insight per slide (even if data supports multiple)
- Label axes, provide legend
Quote slides:
- Attribution required
- Large readable font
- Can be text-only
- Keep quote <50 words
Diagram-heavy slides:
- Minimal text OK if diagram self-explanatory
- Ensure diagram elements ≤6
- Add title asserting diagram's point
Reference slides (appendix/backup):
- Mark as "reference" or "backup"
- Skip optimization
- Dense content acceptable
When NOT to Optimize
Don't optimize when:
- Slide explicitly marked "detailed" or "reference"
- Mathematical proof requiring full derivation
- Code example needing complete context
- Intentional design choice with rationale
Ask first if:
- Unusual format seems intentional
- Content density might be presentation-specific requirement
- User indicates special constraints
Interaction Guidelines
When analyzing:
- Be specific (not vague like "improve clarity")
- Explain reasoning with research basis
- Prioritize recommendations (most impactful first)
- Acknowledge good elements (not only criticism)
- Offer to apply changes or let user decide
After analysis:
- Ask if user wants to apply recommendations
- Allow selective application (not all-or-nothing)
- Offer to re-assess after changes
- Suggest next steps (optimize another slide, etc.)
Working With This Skill
To analyze a slide:
- Read the slide file
- Apply each of the 12 criteria systematically
- Count violations and score
- Prioritize recommendations (CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM)
- Provide specific, actionable suggestions
- Offer to implement approved changes
Integration with other skills:
- Use presentation-design skill for overall structure/flow
- Use visual-design skill to create diagrams/visuals
- Use slidev-mastery skill for technical Slidev syntax
Tools available:
- Read: Examine slide content
- Edit: Apply recommended improvements
- Grep: Search for patterns across slides
Apply this framework consistently to help create clear, accessible, evidence-based presentations.
