gabrielmoreira Deck Autopsy Skill
A deck is an argument wearing design. This skill reads slide images the way a sceptical partner does — reconstructing the claim chain, checking the numbers against each other across slides, and naming the questions the deck is built to keep the room from asking.
What This Skill Produces
- A slide-by-slide read: each slide's claim, its evidence, and what the design emphasises or buries
- The reconstructed argument chain — the deck's whole case as explicit premises → conclusion, with the weak links marked
- A cross-slide consistency check on the numbers
- The avoided questions — what a hostile reader asks that the deck never answers, and (if it's your deck) how to fix that before they do
Required Inputs
- The slide images, in order if possible. If none attached, ask — this skill autopsies real slides, not deck ideas.
- Whose deck and why (ask if missing): analysing a competitor/pitch, or hardening your own before the meeting — the output's stance flips accordingly.
Autopsy Method
- Read each slide twice. Once for the claim (usually the headline), once for the support (the chart, the numbers, the logos). A slide whose headline isn't proven by its own body gets flagged on the spot.
- Read the design as rhetoric. Truncated y-axes, cherry-picked date ranges, percentages without denominators, log scales unannounced, "representative" logos — chart crimes are claims about weakness. Note them per slide.
- Reconstruct the chain. The deck's argument as numbered premises leading to its ask. Every deck has one; most hide a step. The hidden step is the weakest link.
- Cross-examine the numbers. Do the figures agree across slides (TAM vs revenue math, growth rate vs the chart, headcount vs burn)? Cross-slide inconsistency is the highest-value finding an autopsy produces.
- List the avoided questions. Given the claims made, what would a sceptic ask next that no slide answers? Absence is evidence of the sore spot.
- Anchor everything. Every finding cites its slide number. Unreadable content is flagged, never guessed.
Output Format
Deck autopsy: [deck] — [n] slides examined
The deck's argument, reconstructed:
- [premise — slide #]
- [premise — slide #] ∴ [the ask/conclusion — slide #] Weakest link: [which step, why]
Slide-by-slide: [#n] — Claims: [headline]. Support: [what's actually shown]. Design notes: [emphasis/burial/chart crimes]. Verdict: holds / overreaches / unproven.
Numbers cross-check:
| Figure | Slide(s) | Consistent? | Note |
|---|
Questions this deck is built to avoid:
- [question] — [what triggers it, which slide dances around it]
[If it's your deck] Hardening list: [the 3-5 fixes, in order of how likely each hole is to be found in the room]
Quality Checks
- Every finding cites a slide number; illegible content is flagged, not guessed
- Each slide's headline was checked against its own body, not just read
- Chart integrity was examined (axes, ranges, denominators), not just chart content
- Numbers were cross-checked between slides, not only within them
- The avoided-questions list follows from the deck's own claims, not generic due-diligence boilerplate
Anti-Patterns
- Do not autopsy from a deck's reputation or your memory of the company — only from the slides provided
- Do not proceed without slide images — for text notes about a future deck, use board-deck-narrative or investor-pitch-deck instead
- Do not treat beautiful design as evidence of a strong argument — the correlation runs the other way often enough
- Do not list ten nitpicks and skip the structural weakness — one broken chain link outweighs every font choice
- Do not soften findings on your own deck — the room won't