Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →Audit a PowerPoint presentation for layout issues, text overflow, visual hierarchy problems, and consistency gaps. Use when asked to review a slide deck, check a presentation before a meeting, audit slides for layout problems, or QA a deck before sharing. Produces a slide-by-slide report with issues ranked by severity and specific fixes. Best used with Claude Opus 4.7 or newer for reliable slide-level vision analysis.
.claude/skills/mohitagw15856-pptx-slide-auditor/SKILL.md| Test case | Without → With | Effect | Δ tokens | Δ turns |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| case-02 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 6% | 0% |
| case-07 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 13% | 0% |
| case-08 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 74% | 0% |
| case-16 | ✗→✓ | ▲ Improved | 153% | 0% |
| case-14 | ✓→✗ | ▼ Worse | 257% | 0% |
Runs a systematic visual and structural audit of a PowerPoint presentation — identifying layout issues, text overflow, inconsistent styling, weak visual hierarchy, and slides that will cause problems in a presentation setting. Built to leverage Opus 4.7 vision improvements for pixel-level layout analysis.
Ask the user for these if not provided:
| Metric | Result | |---|---| | Total slides | N | | Overall status | Ready / Minor fixes needed / Major revisions required | | Readability score | /10 | | Visual consistency score | /10 | | Most common issue | Pattern observed across multiple slides] |
For each slide with issues:
Slide N: Slide title]
Slides with no issues: just list the slide numbers. Do not write anything else about them.
Issues that repeat across multiple slides:
Pattern title — e.g. "Inconsistent body text size"]
| Dimension | Status | Notes | |---|---|---| | Title consistency (size, font, colour) | Pass / Fail | | | Body text readability at presentation distance | Pass / Fail | | | Image placement alignment | Pass / Fail | | | Whitespace and breathing room | Pass / Fail | | | Data visualisation clarity | Pass / Fail / N/A | |
Based on the stated audience:
| # | Fix | Slide | Effort | Impact | |---|---|---|---|---| | 1 | Specific fix] | Slide N | Low/Med/High | High |
Order by: fixes before handoff (critical) > consistency fixes (high) > polish (medium).
Earlier models struggled with precise spatial analysis of slide layouts — they would hallucinate issues or miss obvious overflow problems. Opus 4.7 vision improvements mean coordinates map 1:1 to pixels, making slide-level issue detection reliable without manual screenshot annotation.
| Case | Status | Duration (ms) | Turns | Tokens | Tool calls | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | Without | With | Δ | ||
case-01 | fail→fail | 42,383 | 15,635 | -63% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,300 | 2,188 | -59% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-02 | fail→pass | 50,266 | 38,555 | -23% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 6,261 | 6,638 | +6% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-03 | fail→fail | 62,471 | 11,110 | -82% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 7,695 | 1,886 | -75% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-04 | fail→fail | 14,428 | 10,871 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 972 | 1,711 | +76% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-05 | pass→pass | 19,492 | 19,839 | +2% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,660 | 3,741 | +41% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-06 | pass→pass | 37,134 | 54,935 | +48% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 5,706 | 9,229 | +62% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-07 | fail→pass | 14,918 | 11,126 | -25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,539 | 1,741 | +13% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-08 | fail→pass | 16,261 | 18,931 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,674 | 2,914 | +74% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-09 | pass→pass | 13,277 | 15,415 | +16% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,020 | 2,864 | +181% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-10 | pass→pass | 24,919 | 20,133 | -19% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,235 | 3,414 | +53% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-11 | pass→pass | 13,164 | 21,127 | +60% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,681 | 3,741 | +123% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-12 | pass→pass | 24,576 | 23,176 | -6% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,370 | 3,322 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-13 | pass→pass | 20,811 | 14,227 | -32% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 2,215 | 3,097 | +40% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-14 | pass→fail | 10,651 | 13,301 | +25% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 674 | 2,406 | +257% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-15 | fail→fail | 7,919 | 11,969 | +51% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 390 | 1,897 | +386% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-16 | fail→pass | 13,546 | 25,330 | +87% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,182 | 2,991 | +153% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-17 | fail→fail | 13,083 | 4,499 | -66% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,175 | 1,495 | +27% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-18 | pass→pass | 14,081 | 7,020 | -50% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,295 | 1,670 | +29% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-19 | pass→pass | 14,481 | 11,547 | -20% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,181 | 1,934 | +64% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-20 | pass→pass | 4,782 | 15,044 | +215% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 613 | 2,300 | +275% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-21 | pass→pass | 11,383 | 7,014 | -38% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,115 | 1,813 | +63% | 0 | 0 | — |
case-22 | pass→pass | 14,200 | 9,809 | -31% | 1 | 1 | 0% | 1,371 | 2,213 | +61% | 0 | 0 | — |
DecimalAI ran this skill against gemini-3.6-flash twice over the same eval suite — once with the skill loaded and once without — and compared the two runs case by case. 22 cases were attempted. The headline lift of +14 percentage points is the difference between those two pass rates over the 22 comparable cases. 2 cases got worse with the skill loaded, and they are included in that figure.
Without the skill loaded, the model failed this case. With it loaded, the same prompt on the same model passed. This is one improved case from the latest verified run; every case, including any that regressed, is in the table above.
Other measured skills in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.