Slide Quality Assessment

Evaluate presentation slides using evidence-based quality criteria grounded in cognitive load research, accessibility standards, and presentation best practices from TED, MIT Communication Lab, and technical conference guidelines.

Research Foundation: Quality assessment based on working memory limits (Miller's Law), David JP Phillips' cognitive load studies, WCAG accessibility standards, and analysis of effective technical presentations.

IMPORTANT: Before analyzing slides, use the Read tool to load the style guide from the plugin directory:

${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/presentation-best-practices.md

This contains the complete research-backed guidelines and validation criteria supporting the 12-point checklist.

The 12-Point Quality Checklist

Use this systematic framework to evaluate any presentation slide:

1. ✓ One Idea Per Slide (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Does the slide communicate exactly ONE central idea, finding, or question?

Why this matters:

Prevents cognitive overload
Maintains audience focus during narration
Enables clear narrative progression

How to assess:

Can slide be explained in ~90 seconds?
Does all content support only the title's assertion?
Are there multiple unrelated concepts?

Red flags:

✗ Covering multiple independent topics
✗ Requires >2 minutes to explain
✗ Content diverges from title

Fix: Split into multiple slides, one concept each

2. ✓ Meaningful Title (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Is the title an assertion (subject + verb + finding) rather than a label?

Why this matters:

Titles act as "topic sentences"
Reading titles in sequence tells the story
Helps distracted viewers catch up
Audience should understand main point from title alone

Good vs Bad:

❌ Bad (labels): "Results", "Background", "Performance"
✅ Good (assertions): "Experiment X demonstrates 2x gain", "Current solutions fail at scale"

How to assess:

Does title state a takeaway (not just a topic)?
Subject + verb + finding format?
Would titles in sequence tell a coherent story?

Fix: Convert labels to complete assertions

3. ✓ Element Count ≤6 (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Total distinct elements ≤6 (bullets + images + diagrams + charts + code blocks)

Why this matters:

Working memory: 7±2 items (Miller's Law)
6 elements exponentially increases cognitive load (Phillips research)
Audience cannot process >6 simultaneous information chunks

What counts as elements:

Each bullet point = 1
Each image/diagram = 1
Each code block = 1
Each chart/graph = 1
Nested bullets count separately

Exceptions:

Progressive builds (v-click) revealing elements incrementally = OK
Diagrams with integrated labels (count as 1 if cohesive)

How to assess: Count all visual and textual chunks the audience must process simultaneously

Red flags:

✗ 8+ bullet points
✗ Multiple diagrams + bullets
✗ Dense content without progressive disclosure

Fix: Reduce elements, split slides, or use v-click for progressive builds

4. ✓ Word Count <50 (CRITICAL)

Criterion: Body text <50 words (excluding title)

Why this matters:

Audience cannot read and listen simultaneously
50 words = audience stops listening to speaker
Slides support speaker, not replace them

How to assess:

Count all words excluding title
Include bullet text, captions, labels
Exclude code (assess separately)

Red flags:

✗ Full sentences in bullets
✗ Paragraph text
✗ Long explanatory captions

Fix:

Convert sentences to phrases (3-6 words per bullet)
Move detailed explanations to presenter notes
Split content across multiple slides

5. ✓ Visual Element Present

Criterion: At least one visual element (diagram, chart, image, code, or graphic)

Why this matters:

Dual-channel processing (visual + audio) improves retention
Visuals convey complex relationships better than text
Almost never text-only slides

Exceptions allowing text-only:

Quote slides
Definition slides
Bold statements for emphasis
Section dividers

How to assess: Is there a diagram, chart, image, code block, or other visual?

Red flags:

✗ Only title + bullets
✗ Dense text without supporting visual
✗ Missed opportunity for diagram

Fix: Add mermaid diagram, chart, image, or code example

6. ✓ Font Sizes (Body ≥18pt, Heading ≥24pt)

Criterion: Body text ≥18pt, headings ≥24pt (accessibility requirement)

Why this matters:

WCAG accessibility standards
Readability from back of room
Accommodates vision impairments

How to assess:

Check Slidev theme defaults
Verify no custom CSS reducing sizes
Test: Can text be read from 20 feet away?

Red flags:

✗ Tiny code fonts (<14pt)
✗ Compressed text to fit content
✗ Caption text <16pt

Fix: Use proper font sizes, split slides if content doesn't fit

7. ✓ Contrast Ratio (≥4.5:1)

Criterion: Text contrast ≥4.5:1 for normal text, ≥3:1 for large text (>24pt)

Why this matters:

WCAG Level AA accessibility requirement
Readability under projection conditions
Accommodates vision impairments

How to assess:

Check dark text on light backgrounds (or inverse)
Avoid: gray-on-gray, yellow-on-white, light-blue-on-white
Test: Is text clearly readable at a glance?

Red flags:

✗ Low-contrast color schemes
✗ Light text on light backgrounds
✗ Colored text without sufficient contrast

Fix: Use high-contrast color pairs, test with contrast checker

8. ✓ Colorblind-Safe (Not Color-Only)

Criterion: Meaning not conveyed by color alone (use patterns, labels, shapes)

Why this matters:

~8% of males have color vision deficiency
Projected colors appear differently than on screen
Print/grayscale versions must be understandable

How to assess:

Can information be understood in grayscale?
Are chart lines distinguished by style (solid/dashed) not just color?
Do diagrams use labels, not just color coding?

Red flags:

✗ "Green = good, red = bad" without labels
✗ Chart with only color-differentiated lines
✗ Diagrams relying solely on color

Fix: Add patterns, labels, shapes, or text alongside color

9. ✓ Standalone Comprehension

Criterion: Can viewer grasp main point from title + visual alone (without narration)?

Why this matters:

Distracted viewers can catch up mid-presentation
Slides work for async review
Conclusions highlighted, not buried

How to assess:

5-second test: Show slide without context - is point clear?
Does visual reinforce the title's assertion?
Could someone skimming slides get the story?

Red flags:

✗ Title + content don't align
✗ Visual unrelated to title
✗ Requires full narration to understand

Fix: Strengthen title-visual connection, add clarifying labels

10. ✓ Phrases Not Sentences

Criterion: Bullets are short phrases (3-6 words), not full sentences

Why this matters:

Prevents audience from reading ahead
Keeps focus on speaker
Avoids reading-while-listening conflict
Garr Reynolds principle: slides support, don't replace speaker

Good vs Bad:

❌ Bad: "Kubernetes orchestrates containerized applications across a cluster of machines"
✅ Good: "Container orchestration across clusters"

How to assess: Are bullets short keyword phrases or full grammatical sentences?

Red flags:

✗ Bullets with periods at the end
✗ Multi-clause sentences
✗ Explanatory prose in bullets

Fix: Extract keywords, move details to presenter notes

11. ✓ White Space (≥10% Margins)

Criterion: Adequate white space around content (≥10% margins, well-distributed)

Why this matters:

Prevents claustrophobic feeling
Improves visual hierarchy
Directs attention to content
Professional appearance

How to assess:

Is content distributed across slide?
Breathing room around elements?
Clear visual separation?

Red flags:

✗ Content edge-to-edge
✗ Cramped, dense appearance
✗ Elements overlapping or too close

Fix: Reduce content, increase padding, split slides

12. ✓ Explainable in ~90 Seconds

Criterion: Slide can be presented in approximately 90 seconds (configurable)

Why this matters:

Maintains presentation pace
Prevents overloaded slides
Ensures depth without overwhelm
Standard conference timing

How to assess:

Can you explain all content in 90 seconds?
Does slide require lengthy explanation?
Would you rush through material?

Red flags:

✗ Requires >2 minutes to cover
✗ Dense content needing detailed explanation
✗ Multiple complex points

Fix: Split slides, simplify content, move details to notes

Quality Scoring System

Score calculation: Count ✓ for each criterion met (max 12 points)

Interpretation:

12/12 - Excellent: Publication-ready
10-11/12 - Good: Minor tweaks needed
8-9/12 - Acceptable: Some improvements needed
6-7/12 - Poor: Significant revision required
<6/12 - Critical: Complete redesign needed

Priority for fixes:

CRITICAL violations (criteria 1-4): Must fix before presenting
HIGH violations (criteria 5-8): Should fix for quality presentation
MEDIUM violations (criteria 9-12): Nice to fix for polish

Analysis Output Format

When assessing a slide, provide:

## Slide [N]: [Current Title]

**Quality Score: [X/12]**

**Current State:**
- ✓/✗ One idea per slide
- ✓/✗ Meaningful title (assertion vs label)
- ✓/✗ Element count: [X] elements (target ≤6)
- ✓/✗ Word count: [Y] words (target <50)
- ✓/✗ Visual element present
- ✓/✗ Font sizes (body ≥18pt, heading ≥24pt)
- ✓/✗ Contrast ratio (≥4.5:1)
- ✓/✗ Colorblind-safe (not color-only)
- ✓/✗ Standalone comprehension (title + visual = point)
- ✓/✗ Phrases not sentences
- ✓/✗ White space (≥10% margins)
- ✓/✗ Explainable in ~90 seconds

**Critical Violations:** [List any CRITICAL criteria failures, or "None"]

**Recommendations (Priority Order):**

1. **[CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM] - [Specific issue]**
   - Current: [What exists now with specific examples]
   - Suggested: [Concrete improvement with example]
   - Why: [Research basis from criteria above]
   - Impact: [Expected improvement]

2. **[Priority] - [Next issue]**
   [Same structure...]

**Quick Win:** [One simple change with biggest impact]

Optimization Strategies by Issue

Reducing Element Count (>6 elements)

Tactics:

Merge related bullets into single points
Move supporting details to presenter notes
Split into 2-3 simpler slides
Use progressive builds (v-click) to reveal incrementally

Example:

Current: 8 bullets about microservices benefits
Fix: Keep 4 key benefits, move implementation details to notes

Reducing Word Count (>50 words)

Tactics:

Convert full sentences to keyword phrases
Remove articles (a, an, the)
Use symbols/abbreviations where clear
Move explanations to presenter notes

Example:

Current: "Kubernetes provides automated deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications"
Fix: "Automated container deployment & scaling"

Creating Meaningful Titles (Label → Assertion)

Tactics:

Add verb + finding to label
State the conclusion, not the category
Make title reveal the "so what?"

Examples:

"Results" → "Response time improved 3x with caching"
"Background" → "Current solutions fail under high load"
"Architecture" → "Microservices enable independent scaling"

Adding Visual Elements

When to add what:

Process/workflow → Mermaid flowchart
Architecture → Mermaid component diagram
Data comparison → Chart/graph
Concepts → Icon or stock photo
Code behavior → Code snippet with highlights

Tip: Use visual-design skill for diagram creation

Converting Sentences to Phrases

Pattern:

Identify the core noun phrase
Remove helping verbs, articles
Keep 3-6 words maximum

Examples:

"The system automatically scales based on traffic" → "Auto-scaling based on traffic"
"We implemented caching to improve performance" → "Caching improves performance"

Edge Cases & Exceptions

Slides That Don't Follow Standard Rules

Title slides:

Skip word count limit
Focus on visual impact
Branding/conference info acceptable

Code slides:

Check syntax highlighting
Verify relevant line selection (not full files)
Ensure <15 lines per block
OK if text-heavy (code is visual)

Data slides:

Chart clarity most important
One insight per slide (even if data supports multiple)
Label axes, provide legend

Quote slides:

Attribution required
Large readable font
Can be text-only
Keep quote <50 words

Diagram-heavy slides:

Minimal text OK if diagram self-explanatory
Ensure diagram elements ≤6
Add title asserting diagram's point

Reference slides (appendix/backup):

Mark as "reference" or "backup"
Skip optimization
Dense content acceptable

When NOT to Optimize

Don't optimize when:

Slide explicitly marked "detailed" or "reference"
Mathematical proof requiring full derivation
Code example needing complete context
Intentional design choice with rationale

Ask first if:

Unusual format seems intentional
Content density might be presentation-specific requirement
User indicates special constraints

Interaction Guidelines

When analyzing:

Be specific (not vague like "improve clarity")
Explain reasoning with research basis
Prioritize recommendations (most impactful first)
Acknowledge good elements (not only criticism)
Offer to apply changes or let user decide

After analysis:

Ask if user wants to apply recommendations
Allow selective application (not all-or-nothing)
Offer to re-assess after changes
Suggest next steps (optimize another slide, etc.)

Working With This Skill

To analyze a slide:

Read the slide file
Apply each of the 12 criteria systematically
Count violations and score
Prioritize recommendations (CRITICAL → HIGH → MEDIUM)
Provide specific, actionable suggestions
Offer to implement approved changes

Integration with other skills:

Use presentation-design skill for overall structure/flow
Use visual-design skill to create diagrams/visuals
Use slidev-mastery skill for technical Slidev syntax

Tools available:

Read: Examine slide content
Edit: Apply recommended improvements
Grep: Search for patterns across slides

Apply this framework consistently to help create clear, accessible, evidence-based presentations.