AmbroseTriC/slide-excellence

Slide Excellence Review

Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of lecture slides. Multiple agents analyze the file independently, then results are synthesized.

Steps

1. Identify the File

Parse $ARGUMENTS for the filename. Resolve path in Quarto/ or Slides/.

2. Run Review Agents in Parallel

Agent 1: Visual Audit (slide-auditor)

• Overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, spacing, images
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_visual_audit.md

Agent 2: Pedagogical Review (pedagogy-reviewer)

• 13 pedagogical patterns, narrative, pacing, notation
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_pedagogy_report.md

Agent 3: Proofreading (proofreader)

• Grammar, typos, consistency, academic quality, citations
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_report.md

Agent 4: TikZ Review (only if file contains TikZ)

• Label overlaps, geometric accuracy, visual semantics
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_tikz_review.md

Agent 5: Content Parity (only for .qmd files with corresponding .tex)

• Frame count comparison, environment parity, content drift
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_parity_report.md

Agent 6: Substance Review (optional, for .tex files)

• Domain correctness via domain-reviewer protocol
• Save: quality_reports/[FILE]_substance_review.md

3. Synthesize Combined Summary

# Slide Excellence Review: [Filename]

## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR]

| Dimension | Critical | Medium | Low |
|-----------|----------|--------|-----|
| Visual/Layout | | | |
| Pedagogical | | | |
| Proofreading | | | |

### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
### Medium Issues (Next Revision)
### Recommended Next Steps

Quality Score Rubric

| Score | Critical | Medium | Meaning | |-------|----------|--------|---------| | Excellent | 0-2 | 0-5 | Ready to present | | Good | 3-5 | 6-15 | Minor refinements | | Needs Work | 6-10 | 16-30 | Significant revision | | Poor | 11+ | 31+ | Major restructuring |