--- name: deck-pipeline description: 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. --- # 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](../mckinsey-charts/SKILL.md)** 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](../mckinsey-critic/SKILL.md) 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](../mckinsey-charts/SKILL.md) 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.