report-deck-zh
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Build Chinese work-briefing slides that follow the structural grammar of formal Chinese reporting — parallel (对仗) titles, whole-part-whole (总分总) structure, data pages with caliber/source captions (口径说明), and hierarchical progression — instead of English pitch-deck aesthetics or generic AI-PPT templates. Trigger when the user says "做一份汇报/述职/总结 slides", "中文工作汇报 deck", "把这个做成汇报 PPT(中文正式)", "立项汇报 版式", "复盘汇报排版", or "Chinese briefing slides / formal Chinese report deck". Produces structure, not content. Do NOT trigger for: English pitch decks (use frontend-slides), casual or social-sharing slides, generating the report's actual content or copy (this builds the structural skeleton only), or generic "make this prettier" requests with no formal-briefing context.
In this repository9 other files it gives its agents.
- audit-the-hustleSkill
- backtest-your-frameworkSkill
- distill-not-transcribeSkill
- extract-narrative-methodsSkill
- handoff-disciplineSkill
- missing-not-zeroSkill
- read-not-decorateSkill
- stress-test-the-planSkill
- strip-the-ai-voiceSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
3
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 80
Workflow gate (mandatory): before laying out any slides, report to the user (a) the briefing type you identified (述职 / 总结 / 立项 / 复盘 / …
- Very specific: line 87
Every title group at the same level must be parallel: aligned character count, symmetric grammatical structure, consistent verb-object form …
- Very specific: line 90
Every page presenting figures carries a caliber caption: data source, statistical scope, time caliber (reference/data-pages.md).
- Very specific: line 95
No emoji, no gradients, no decorative icons, no stock imagery (reference/visual.md).
- Distinctive: line 103
Retirement condition: when a bare model, unprompted, reliably produces parallel titles, whole-part-whole structure, and caliber captions …
- Distinctive: line 106
Failure behavior: if the input does not determine the briefing type or skeleton, stop and ask.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
report-deck-zh — Chinese briefing slides have a grammar; speak it
Chinese work briefings have a structural grammar — parallel titles, whole-part-whole, data-caption pages — that English slide tools don't speak. This skill encodes it.
Lineage (adaptation-line skill — read before judging this redundant)
Derived from / inspired by frontend-slides (Zara). Four questions:
- Where does the original fail? frontend-slides builds HTML slides with English deck aesthetics. It does not know the conventions of formal Chinese reporting: titles must be parallel (对仗), the document must close the loop (总分总), data pages must carry caliber captions, hierarchy follows Chinese official-document progression, not free-form bullets.
- Was the author a failed user of the original? Yes. The author has produced formal Chinese work briefings at volume; decks laid out with English-aesthetic tools read as structurally wrong in that setting — recognizably "not a formal document" before anyone reads a word.
- What is the patch? Replace the English aesthetic templates with a Chinese-briefing structural grammar library: parallel-title generation rules, whole-part-whole skeleton, data-caliber page pattern, hierarchical progression rules. Visual tokens reuse the restraint system from read-not-decorate.
- For whom is this a reason to switch? Anyone producing formal Chinese work briefings (述职 / 总结 / 立项 / 复盘) who needs structure that reads as native formal reporting, not an English pitch deck.
Stance (three load-bearing claims)
- Formal Chinese reporting has its own structural grammar; English slide tools don't speak it. Mechanism: parallel titles, whole-part-whole, and caliber pages are conventions of the genre — apply English deck logic and the structure itself is wrong, regardless of polish. Field observation: a Chinese briefing laid out by an English-aesthetic tool shows non-parallel titles and no data-caliber page; experienced readers flag it as "not a formal document" at a glance. Boundary: verified on formal work briefings; untested on academic or government-publication formats.
- Structure only, never content. Mechanism: the skeleton generalizes; the content is case-specific, and generating it both exceeds this skill's warrant and risks leaking real-world specifics. Field observation: the author's own production rules repeatedly draw this exact line. If input is insufficient to infer structure, stop and ask the briefing type — do not invent content to fill a skeleton.
- Restrained visuals; reuse read-not-decorate tokens. Mechanism: a briefing must read professional, not decorated; the homogenized card-beautification of mass AI-PPT tools is precisely the failure mode. Field observation: homogenized beautification makes every briefing look identical; a restrained structural layout reads as more professional, not less. Boundary: this is a claim about formal briefings; light or playful decks legitimately want different visuals — out of scope here.
Core actions (do X → load Y)
| Task | Load |
| Decide the deck skeleton (briefing type, sections, closing loop) | reference/structure.md |
| Generate or repair parallel titles | reference/titles.md |
| Lay out data pages with caliber captions | reference/data-pages.md |
| Apply visual tokens | reference/visual.md |
| See a complete worked example | examples/demo.html |
Workflow gate (mandatory): before laying out any slides, report to the user (a) the briefing type you identified (述职 / 总结 / 立项 / 复盘 / other) and (b) the proposed section skeleton. Wait for confirmation. Layout without a confirmed skeleton is the most common failure.
Hard rules:
- Every title group at the same level must be parallel: aligned character
count, symmetric grammatical structure, consistent verb-object form
(
reference/titles.md). - Every page presenting figures carries a caliber caption: data source,
statistical scope, time caliber (
reference/data-pages.md). No caption, no data page. - The deck closes the loop: opening states the whole, body parts it,
closing restates the whole with the delta (
reference/structure.md). - No emoji, no gradients, no decorative icons, no stock imagery
(
reference/visual.md). - Examples and placeholders are fictional generic-business scenarios only.
Six fields
- Version: 0.1 (2026-06). Changelog: initial release. Corrections will be marked in place, not deleted (reverse-marking policy).
- Retirement condition: when a bare model, unprompted, reliably produces parallel titles, whole-part-whole structure, and caliber captions for Chinese briefings, this skill retires.
- Failure behavior: if the input does not determine the briefing type or skeleton, stop and ask. Do not silently force a skeleton onto unclear input; do not generate content to compensate.
- Composition: composes-with read-not-decorate (shared visual tokens). Division of labor with frontend-slides: English decks → that skill; formal Chinese briefings → this one. Explicit user instructions override this skill.
- Time: judgments dated 2026-06. Chinese briefing conventions are stable; the AI-PPT tool ecosystem is not. Review in ~18 months.
- Boundary: verified on formal Chinese work-briefing layout. Not for English pitch decks, not for light/social slides, does not generate briefing content. Untested beyond these — treat as unverified there.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

