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 (either as formatted text, markdown, or .pptx via python-pptx) with:

• Claim-based titles on every slide
• Data points with sources where available
• Visual structure suggestions (tables, callout boxes, charts)
• Section transitions between narrative blocks

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

---

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

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.