brycewang-stanford Adversarial Quarto vs Beamer QA Workflow
Compare Quarto HTML slides against their Beamer PDF benchmark using an iterative critic/fixer loop.
Philosophy: The Beamer PDF is the gold standard. The Quarto translation must be at least as good in every dimension.
Workflow
Phase 0: Pre-flight → Phase 1: Critic audit → Phase 2: Fixer → Phase 3: Re-audit → Loop until APPROVED (max 5 rounds)
Hard Gates (Non-Negotiable)
| Gate | Condition |
|---|---|
| Overflow | NO content cut off |
| Plot Quality | Interactive charts >= static plots |
| Content Parity | No missing slides/equations/text |
| Visual Regression | Quarto >= Beamer in all dimensions |
| Slide Centering | Content centered, no jumping |
| Notation Fidelity | All math verbatim from Beamer |
Phase 0: Pre-flight
- Locate Beamer (.tex/.pdf) and Quarto (.qmd/.html) files
- Check freshness (re-render if QMD newer than HTML)
- Verify TikZ SVGs if applicable
Phase 1: Initial Audit
Launch the quarto-critic agent to compare Beamer vs Quarto comprehensively. Report saved to quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_critic_round1.md.
Phase 2: Fix Cycle
If not APPROVED, launch quarto-fixer agent to apply fixes (Critical → Major → Minor), re-render, and verify.
Phase 3: Re-Audit
Re-launch critic to verify fixes. Loop back to Phase 2 if needed.
Iteration Limits
Max 5 fix rounds. After that, escalate to user with remaining issues.
Final Report
Save to quality_reports/[Lecture]_qa_final.md with hard gate status, iteration summary, and remaining issues.