deck-pipeline
Skill136 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Multi-agent pipeline that builds a polished presentation deck from a single topic. Four agents work in sequence — Strategist defines the narrative, Builder creates the deck, Critic reviews it like a McKinsey EM, Fixer applies the top fixes. Use when you need a presentation that survives senior audiences.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- TinaDu-AI/deck-pipelinetheir own version, first seen May 12, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- TinaDu-AI/deck-pipeline★ 2same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-use-case-scorerSkill
- decision-memo-builderSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- issue-tree-builderSkill
- mckinsey-chartsSkill
- mckinsey-criticSkill
- meeting-prep-kitSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- scpr-frameworkSkill
- stakeholder-mapSkill
- storyline-builderSkill
- synthesisSkill
- top-down-memoSkill
- workshop-designerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 73
Keep body text to 3-5 points per slide maximum
- Distinctive: line 74
Every data slide needs at least one source
- Very specific: line 75
Every quantitative slide uses a chart from mckinsey-charts, not a screenshot
- Distinctive: line 198
No third-party dependency: No Gamma account, no API key, no per-deck credit cost.
≈ “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
Deck Pipeline
A 4-agent pipeline that transforms a topic into a critique-proof presentation deck. Each agent has a distinct role — the output of one feeds the next. The result is a deck that has been strategically structured, built, reviewed, and fixed before you ever touch it.
The Four Agents
Topic
│
▼
┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐ ┌─────────────┐
│ STRATEGIST │───▶│ BUILDER │───▶│ CRITIC │───▶│ FIXER │
│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│ Defines the │ │ Creates the │ │ Reviews like│ │ Applies the │
│ narrative │ │ actual deck │ │ a McKinsey │ │ top 3 fixes │
│ and outline │ │ │ │ EM at 2am │ │ │
└─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘ └─────────────┘Agent 1: Strategist
Role: Define the audience, governing thought, and full slide outline before anything gets built.
What it does:
- Identifies the target audience and what they care about
- Defines the governing thought (the one sentence the whole deck proves)
- Creates a 10-12 slide outline using Situation → Complication → Resolution structure
- Each slide title is a claim, not a label ("RTD market will reach $42.5B by 2028" not "Market Overview")
- Groups slides into clear narrative blocks
Output: A structured outline with:
- Audience definition
- Governing thought
- Slide-by-slide titles with supporting points
- Narrative flow markers (Situation / Complication / Resolution)
Why this matters: A deck without a strategy is just a collection of slides. The strategist ensures every slide earns its place in the argument.
Agent 2: Builder
Role: Convert the strategist's outline into an actual presentation.
What it does:
- Takes the outline and creates the full deck content
- Writes slide body text, data points, and supporting evidence
- Structures visual elements: comparison tables, stat callout boxes, framework diagrams
- Maintains consistent formatting and tone throughout
- Ensures each slide has a clear "so what"
Output: A complete deck as a native .pptx (via python-pptx) with editable text and editable charts. Optional: markdown or formatted text as an intermediate artifact for review.
- Claim-based titles on every slide
- Data points with sources where available
- Visual structure suggestions (tables, callout boxes, charts)
- Section transitions between narrative blocks
Tools the Builder uses:
- mckinsey-charts for native editable charts — bar+callout for single-number stories, stacked column for mix over time, waterfall for bridges. The audience can right-click → Edit Data inside PowerPoint. Use this instead of pasting chart images.
- python-pptx for native text, tables, and layout. No screenshots, no image-based content — everything stays editable.
Tips for the Builder:
- Stat callout boxes work well for key numbers (large font, contrasting color)
- Comparison tables > bullet lists when presenting options
- Keep body text to 3-5 points per slide maximum
- Every data slide needs at least one source
- Every quantitative slide uses a chart from
mckinsey-charts, not a screenshot
Agent 3: Critic
Role: Review the deck like a senior engagement manager would — find every structural problem, weak argument, and missing element.
What it does:
- Grades the overall deck (Green / Yellow / Red)
- Reviews each slide with a status and specific issue
- Identifies the top 3 fixes ranked by impact
- Calls out one thing that works (to protect it)
Grading:
| Grade | Meaning |
| Green | Ready for stakeholders |
| Yellow | Fixable overnight, do not send as-is |
| Red | Core argument broken, needs rework |
What it checks:
- Narrative flow and structure
- Data rigor (sources, specificity, comparisons)
- "So what" on every slide
- Financial framing where needed
- Claim-based titles vs topic titles
- Frameworks vs bullet lists
Output: A critique document with section-by-section grades and top 3 prioritized fixes.
See the McKinsey Critic skill for the full review framework.
Agent 4: Fixer
Role: Apply the critic's top 3 fixes to produce the final deck.
What it does:
- Takes the critic's specific fix instructions
- Applies each fix to the deck
- Documents what changed and why
- Produces the final, polished version
Common fixes the Fixer applies:
- Adding source footnotes to data slides
- Rebuilding bullet lists as comparison tables (columns = options, rows = evaluation dimensions)
- Adding financial frames (market size × share = revenue, margin analysis, investment required)
- Sharpening headlines from descriptions to claims
- Naming competitors instead of describing them generically
- Linking disconnected slides back to the core argument
Output: The final deck with all fixes applied, plus a change log showing before → after for each fix.
How to Use
Quick Start
"Build me a deck on [topic] for [audience]. Use the full pipeline —
strategist, builder, critic, fixer."With More Context
"I need a deck for [audience] arguing that [governing thought].
Key data points I have: [list any data, stats, or sources you want included]
Run the full pipeline: outline it, build it, critique it, fix it."Step by Step (if you want control between stages)
Step 1: "Act as the strategist. Define the audience, governing thought,
and 10-slide outline for [topic]."
Step 2: "Now act as the builder. Turn this outline into a full deck."
Step 3: "Now act as the McKinsey critic. Grade this deck and give me
the top 3 fixes."
Step 4: "Now act as the fixer. Apply the top 3 fixes."Example: What Each Agent Produces
Topic: "Should a premium coffee company enter the RTD (Ready-to-Drink) market?"
Strategist output:
- Audience: Board of directors + CEO
- Governing thought: "The premium RTD market offers a $425M revenue opportunity that plays to our existing capabilities — but only if we move within 12 months."
- 10 slides: 3 Situation (market size, specialty growth, RTD growth) → 3 Complication (consumer shift, competition, first-mover window) → 4 Resolution (path comparison, RTD recommendation, sustainability, roadmap)
Builder output: Full deck with data, stat callouts, comparison tables
Critic output:
- Grade: YELLOW
- Fix 1: Cite every number (no source footnotes on any slide)
- Fix 2: Slide 7 is a bullet list — needs comparison table (3 paths × 5 dimensions)
- Fix 3: No financial frame — add $425M revenue at 1% share, $15-25M Phase 1 investment
Fixer output: Final deck with all sources added, comparison table rebuilt, financial frame on recommendation slide
When to Use
- Board presentations and investor updates
- Strategy recommendations to leadership
- Product launch proposals
- Market entry analysis
- Any deck that needs to survive tough questions
What replaced the old Gamma path
Earlier versions of this repo paired the storyline with the Gamma API to generate finished decks. The current version uses native python-pptx + the mckinsey-charts skill instead. Reasons:
- Editable, not generated. Charts are real PowerPoint chart objects, not images. The audience can change colors, edit data, copy to their own deck.
- No third-party dependency. No Gamma account, no API key, no per-deck credit cost.
- Better defaults. Single highlight color, no gridlines, claim-shaped titles — already wired into mckinsey-charts. The Gamma path required prompt-engineering the look every time.
The gamma-automation/ folder is preserved for reference but is deprecated.
Why a Pipeline Instead of One Prompt
A single "build me a deck" prompt produces mediocre work because it tries to think strategically AND write content AND self-critique simultaneously. By separating the roles:
- The strategist focuses purely on narrative architecture
- The builder focuses on content and visuals, with a clear brief
- The critic is adversarial — it's not trying to protect what was built
- The fixer has specific, prioritized instructions — not vague "make it better"
The result is a deck that has been through the equivalent of a junior consultant → senior associate → engagement manager review cycle.
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.

