# Game Design Pitch Deck Audit > Audit a video game pitch deck, publisher deck, funding deck, or investor-facing game presentation for clarity, structure, persuasiveness, visual readability, business-case completeness, and publisher-fit. Use when reviewing a pitch deck before sending to publishers, polishing a deck for meetings, checking whether the deck answers the essential questions about who, what, why, when, budget, and opportunity, or evaluating whether a deck sells both the game and the collaboration case rather than just dumping information. - Skill: `stanestane/game-design-pitch-deck-audit` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add stanestane/game-design-pitch-deck-audit` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/stanestane/game-design-pitch-deck-audit/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Security - Author: Stanestane (https://skillmd.com/u/stanestane) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/stanestane/game-design-pitch-deck-audit --- # Game Design Pitch Deck Audit Audit a game pitch deck as both a persuasion tool and a business-case artifact. Use this skill to evaluate whether a game pitch deck is clear, compelling, visually readable, and properly structured for publisher or funding conversations. Focus on whether the deck makes a strong case for the team, the game, the opportunity, the ask, and the path to completion. ## Core principle A good pitch deck does not merely describe a game. It builds confidence in the team, sells the dream of the project, proves the work, frames the opportunity, and makes a realistic ask. ## What to produce Generate: 1. **Deck overview** - what the deck is trying to do and for whom 2. **Structure audit** - whether the core sections are present and in a persuasive order 3. **Content audit** - strengths, gaps, and weak claims 4. **Visual/readability audit** - whether the deck is easy to follow without live narration 5. **Publisher-fit audit** - whether the deck answers the practical questions a publisher or funder will ask 6. **Recommendations** - what to cut, strengthen, reorder, or add ## Audit lenses Audit the deck through these lenses: - **Who** - who is making the game and why they are credible - **Why / opportunity** - why this project exists and why now - **What** - what the game is, what makes it stand out, and what the final vision is - **Proof** - what already exists that proves the team can deliver - **Business case** - comparables, target audience, monetization, market logic, and opportunity - **Ask** - budget, timeline, platforms, scope, and what support is being requested - **Readability** - whether the deck works when sent ahead of a meeting without narration ## Process ### 1. Define the deck context Clarify: - who the audience is: publisher, investor, platform, partner, grant body - whether this deck is meant to be sent async, presented live, or both - what stage the project is in: concept, prototype, vertical slice, production - whether the deck is accompanied by a build, trailer, GDD, or other materials ### 2. Audit the high-level structure Check whether the deck answers the essential questions: - What are you making? - Why are you making it? - Who is making it? - Where do you want to go? - What do you need to get there? - When will you get there? Also check whether the deck roughly covers: - team / studio credibility - artistic why - business why / opportunity - dream of the game - proof of the game - work / systems / core loop - market or comparables - timeline and budget - summary and contact info ### 3. Audit the team and credibility section Ask: - does the deck establish why this team should be trusted? - does it show relevant shipped work, experience, or platform familiarity? - is it concise, or does it waste time on irrelevant biography? - does it explain who will actually make the game if funded? ### 4. Audit the game pitch itself Check for three distinct functions: - **Dream** - does the deck sell the final vision of the game? - **Proof** - does it show prototype, vertical slice, or other non-speculative evidence? - **Work** - does it explain how the game operates, what the core loop is, and why the game is compelling? Ask: - is the hook clear quickly? - are the unique selling points obvious? - does the deck lean into strengths strongly enough? - does it show what is familiar and then what is unique? - does it explain why the game matters, not just what it contains? ### 5. Audit the business case Ask: - does the deck explain the opportunity and target audience? - are comparables believable and useful rather than vanity references? - is monetization or business model clearly stated if relevant? - is the market framing grounded, or just wishful genre enthusiasm? - does the deck sell the collaboration case, not just the product fantasy? ### 6. Audit the ask Check whether the deck makes a realistic ask around: - budget - timeline - platforms - release window - build status - support needed Ask: - is the budget plausible and safely scoped? - are the timeline ratios believable? - is the ask too low in a way that signals inexperience? - does the deck separate development needs from broader publishing or marketing assumptions when relevant? ### 7. Audit deck usability and readability Ask: - does the deck work without live commentary? - is the text readable and concise? - are the slides overcrowded? - does imagery carry the message effectively? - are GIFs, videos, mockups, or key art used meaningfully? - is the style aligned with the tone of the game? - does the deck avoid pointless bullet sludge? ### 8. Audit submission readiness If the deck is intended for publishers, check whether the package likely includes or references: - a playable build - control notes if needed - skippable cutscenes or checkpoints if relevant to the build - budget in practical terms - timeline to release - supplementary materials that help a stranger understand the project quickly ### 9. Diagnose common failure patterns Common pitch-deck failure patterns: - **Identity fog** - unclear what the game actually is - **Dream without proof** - strong fantasy, weak evidence - **Proof without dream** - lots of prototype facts, no compelling vision - **Bio bloat** - too much team info with too little relevance - **Market handwaving** - vague business claims with weak comparables - **Budget naivety** - undercooked ask or unrealistic timeline - **Narration dependency** - deck only works if someone explains everything live - **Template autopilot** - all the right sections exist, but the deck says nothing memorable - **Visual sludge** - unreadable, cramped, or aesthetically disconnected from the game ### 10. Convert findings into recommendations For each issue, specify: - **Problem** - **Why it hurts the pitch** - **Fix direction** - **Priority** - critical / important / polish ## Response structure ### Deck Overview - ... ### Structure Audit - Present: ... - Missing or weak: ... ### Content Audit - Team credibility: ... - Game hook: ... - Proof: ... - Business case: ... - Ask: ... ### Visual / Readability Audit - ... ### Publisher-Fit Audit - ... ### Failure Patterns - ... ### Recommendations 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... ## Fast mode - What is the game? - Why this team? - Why this opportunity? - What proof already exists? - What is the ask? - Would this deck still make sense if read without you in the room? ## References Read these when useful: - `references/pitch-deck-notes.md` for distilled deck structure and slide expectations from the templates - `references/raw-fury-notes.md` for the Raw Fury-specific pitch expectations ## Working principle A good pitch deck should make a stranger understand the game, trust the team, believe the opportunity, and feel the ask is grounded.