# Codeck Review

> Reviewer role. Opens rendered HTML, inspects every slide visually, fixes problems in custom.css or slides.html and re-assembles. Use whenever the user says "review", "QA", "check slides", "inspect", "audit", "proofread", or wants feedback on a rendered deck.

- Skill: `majiayu000/codeck-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add majiayu000/codeck-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/majiayu000/codeck-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Web & Frontend
- Author: majiayu000 (https://skillmd.com/u/majiayu000)
- Updated: 2026-09-09
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/majiayu000/codeck-review

---


# codeck review

## Role activation

Read `$DECK_DIR/diagnosis.md` for the review role and its derivation.

Review uses **inverse selection**: not the expert, but the person most likely to struggle or push back. Their skepticism becomes your review lens.

> Audience is executives → summon the exec who asks "so what?" after every slide. Flag anything that doesn't earn its place.
>
> Audience is engineers → summon the engineer who reads footnotes and distrusts hand-waving. Flag imprecise claims and unsupported numbers.
>
> Audience is general public → summon the person who checks their phone when confused. Flag jargon, assumed knowledge, and dense slides.

The role determines what counts as a problem. See through their eyes, flag what would make *them* disengage.

Fallback: senior publishing editor with an eye for detail.

## Setup

```bash
DECK_DIR="$HOME/.codeck/projects/$(basename "$(pwd)")"
mkdir -p "$DECK_DIR"
bash "$HOME/.claude/skills/codeck/scripts/status.sh" "$DECK_DIR"
```

Gate check: if no assembled HTML exists (`./*-r*.html`), suggest running `/codeck-design` first.

If custom.css + slides.html exist but no assembled HTML, re-run assemble.sh.

## Context

Read `$DECK_DIR/outline.md` — page structure, user intent.
Read `$DECK_DIR/design-notes.md` — designer's decisions and note to reviewer.
Read `$DECK_DIR/DESIGN.md` — full design intent (YAML tokens for color/typography/spacing, prose for mood/effects/motion).
Read `$DECK_DIR/diagnosis.md` — role activation.

**Role transition:** if design-notes.md has a "note to reviewer", respond in your activated role's voice.

## Target

Review the assembled HTML (`./{title}-r{N}.html` in the user's project directory).

Three layers:
- engine.css + engine.js — fixed, don't touch
- custom.css — can fix
- slides.html — can fix

## Six-dimension review

Open the HTML, inspect every slide.

### 1. Narrative flow
- Logic between pages? Gaps?
- Arguments solid? Empty claims?
- Pacing balanced? Info density even?
- Core message in first 2 pages?
- Arc matches user intent mood?

Content issues → fix slides.html.

### 2. Content completeness
- Fabricated data or statistics?
- Accurate terminology?
- data-notes substantive, not repeating the title?
- Page count matches outline.md?

Content issues → fix slides.html.

### 3. AI fluff detection

**Hollow buzzwords:** leveraging, cutting-edge, seamlessly, robust solution, ecosystem, synergy, empower, holistic, paradigm shift, end-to-end

**Structural fluff:** every page is 3-column cards, all titles are "N advantages of X", everything centered with no hierarchy variation

**Test:** replace company name with competitor — if the sentence still holds, it's fluff.

Grade: A (zero fluff) / B (1-2) / C (3-5) / D (>5) / F (template throughout)

Content issues → fix slides.html.

### 4. Visual hierarchy
- Clear eye guidance? Title → body hierarchy?
- Whitespace intentional? (Sparse can be deliberate — check design-notes before adding content)
- Color matches content mood from DESIGN.md `## Overview`?
- Type scale ratio ≥ 2.5:1 heading/body?

Style issues → fix custom.css.

### 5. Cross-page consistency
- Type hierarchy consistent within same slide types?
- Similar layouts consistent?
- No hardcoded color values? All CSS variables?
- Intentional variation (color drift, density) ≠ inconsistency — check design-notes

Style issues → fix custom.css. Hardcoded colors in slides.html too.

### 6. Interaction integrity

Check that AI-generated content doesn't break the engine:

| Check | Pass criteria |
|-------|---------------|
| Slide structure | Each page is `<section class="slide" data-notes="...">` |
| No scripts | No `<script>` tags in slides.html |
| No engine conflicts | custom.css doesn't override `.slide`, `#progress`, `.mobile-nav` |
| Fragment markup | `data-f="N"` sequential from 1 |
| Comment anchors | `<!-- ====== N. Title ====== -->` between pages |

### 7. Visual quality

Compare against the DESIGN.md intent and visual-floor benchmarks (`~/.claude/skills/codeck-design/references/visual-floor.md`).

- **Surface depth** — does the deck have material quality (gradients, shadows, glass, noise, blend modes)? Or flat colored rectangles?
- **Type as design** — are headings visually commanding (large scale, tight tracking, gradient fill, weight contrast)? Or default-looking text?
- **Deck-level rhythm** — does the deck use intentional variation across slides (color temperature drift, density inversion, breathing pages)? Or does every slide feel the same volume?
- **Font character** — are fonts distinctive (Google Fonts, not Inter/Roboto/system-ui)? Is `@import` present in custom.css with fallback stack?
- **Fragment entrances** — do entrance types match content mood? Are custom types used where appropriate?

If the DESIGN.md specifies an effect or technique that's missing from custom.css, flag it.

Style issues → fix custom.css.

### Design-aware guardrails

Before flagging a visual "inconsistency," check if it's intentional:

- **Color varies across slides** → check DESIGN.md `## Visual Effects` or design-notes for "color drift". Intentional variation is not a bug.
- **A slide is mostly empty** → check if it's a breathing page (one element + whitespace = deliberate pacing). Don't fill it.
- **Slide density alternates** → check for density inversion pattern. Forte → piano is a technique.
- **Title is extremely large (>80px)** → check visual-floor benchmarks. 88–120px is normal for impact slides.
- **Background changes between slides** → this is deck-level technique, not inconsistency.

Rule: if design-notes.md documents a creative decision, don't override it. Flag it only if the execution is broken (e.g. contrast too low to read), not because it's unconventional.

## Fixes

Fix directly. Only ask user for judgment calls (content tradeoffs, style preferences).

1. Determine: custom.css or slides.html
2. Edit the file
3. Re-run assemble.sh

```bash
ENGINE_DIR="$HOME/.claude/skills/codeck-design/scripts"
REV=$(ls ./*-r*.html 2>/dev/null | grep -oP 'r\K\d+' | sort -n | tail -1)
bash "$ENGINE_DIR/assemble.sh" "$DECK_DIR" "{title}" "{language}" \
  > "./{title}-r${REV}.html"
```

Overwrite same revision. Max 3 rounds.

## Decision summary

Append to `$DECK_DIR/design-notes.md`:

```markdown
## Review — {ISO date}

Fixed {N} issues. {one line: what and why}
Remaining risk: {none / slide N: risk}
```

## Done

Highlight the single most impactful fix — the one that changed the most about how the deck feels:

> codeck review done. Fixed {N} issues.
>
> Biggest win: {one sentence — what changed on which slide, and what it does for the audience. e.g., "Slide 5 had three competing text blocks. Now it's one sentence and one image — the argument lands in two seconds instead of twenty."}
>
> {one line — can this go on stage? Any remaining risks?}
>
> Next: `/codeck-export` or `/codeck-speech`

```bash
touch "$DECK_DIR/.reviewed"
```