| name | slide-excellence |
| description | Comprehensive slide excellence review combining visual audit, pedagogical review, and proofreading. Produces three reports and a combined summary. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [QMD or TEX filename] |
Slide Excellence Review
Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of lecture slides. Three agents analyze the file independently, then results are synthesized into a combined summary.
Steps
1. Identify the File
Parse $ARGUMENTS for the filename. If no argument provided, ask the user which lecture to review.
Resolve the full path:
- If argument is just a name like
Lecture4_StaggeredRollout.qmd, look in Quarto/
- If argument is a
.tex file, look in Slides/
- If argument includes a path, use it directly
2. Run Review Agents in Parallel
Launch all three agents as Task subagents simultaneously.
Agent 1: Visual Audit (slide-auditor)
- Check overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, spacing, images
- Format-aware: Quarto-specific suggestions for .qmd, LaTeX-specific for .tex
- Save report to:
quality_reports/[FILENAME_WITHOUT_EXT]_visual_audit.md
Agent 2: Pedagogical Review (pedagogy-reviewer)
- Check 12 pedagogical patterns, deck-level narrative, pacing, notation
- PhD student lens: prerequisites, objections, worked examples
- Save report to:
quality_reports/[FILENAME_WITHOUT_EXT]_pedagogy_report.md
Agent 3: Proofreading (proofreader)
- Check grammar, typos, consistency, academic quality, citations
- Save report to:
quality_reports/[FILENAME_WITHOUT_EXT]_report.md
3. Synthesize Combined Summary
After all three agents complete, read their reports and produce a combined summary:
# Slide Excellence Review: [Filename]
**Date:** [date]
## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR]
**Total Issues:** N
- Critical: X
- Medium: Y
- Low: Z
### By Dimension
| Dimension | Critical | Medium | Low |
|-----------|----------|--------|-----|
| Visual/Layout | | | |
| Pedagogical | | | |
| Proofreading | | | |
| TikZ Freshness | | | |
| Content/Env Parity | | | |
### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
1. **[Dimension] [Slide/Location]** — [Description]. [Recommendation].
2. ...
### Medium Issues (Next Revision)
[Grouped by dimension]
### Reports
- Visual: `quality_reports/[FILE]_visual_audit.md`
- Pedagogy: `quality_reports/[FILE]_pedagogy_report.md`
- Proofreading: `quality_reports/[FILE]_report.md`
### Recommended Next Steps
1. Fix critical issues (prioritize pedagogical violations first)
2. Re-render and verify visual fixes
3. Re-run `/slide-excellence` to confirm improvement
Quality Score Rubric
| Score | Critical Issues | Medium Issues | Meaning |
|---|
| Excellent | 0-2 | 0-5 | Ready to present |
| Good | 3-5 | 6-15 | Minor refinements needed |
| Needs Work | 6-10 | 16-30 | Significant revision needed |
| Poor | 11+ | 31+ | Major restructuring needed |
Important Notes
- This is read-only — no files are edited automatically
- All agents run independently (no dependency between them)
- User decides which recommendations to accept
- Can re-run after fixes to track improvement
- For quick single-dimension checks, use
/visual-audit, /pedagogy-review, or /proofread individually
Typical Workflow
/slide-excellence Lecture5_DiD.qmd
# → Review combined summary
# → Fix critical issues
# → Re-run to verify
# → Commit when score is "Good" or "Excellent"
