What problem would this solve?
The current workflow validates layout registration, image slots, overflow, typography, spacing, and visual safety zones, but it does not evaluate whether a slide contains too much or too little information.
A deck can pass every structural and browser check while still feeling empty, overloaded, or poorly prioritized. This is especially visible when a large headline, six cards, explanatory copy, and KPI blocks compete on the same slide, or when an image-led slide adds almost no new information.
What do you want the Skill to do?
Add an explicit information-density QA stage before final visual validation.
Suggested scope:
- Define a recommended content budget for every registered layout, including title lines, number of modules, body-copy length, number of new concepts, and required evidence.
- Distinguish visual density from semantic density.
- Require one primary claim per slide and recommend only 1–3 new concepts per slide.
- Flag slides that are under-filled, overloaded, or lack a clear visual hierarchy.
- Add a density column to the planning table before HTML generation.
- Add density checks to references/checklist.md and document examples of acceptable and unacceptable density.
Suggested planning contract:
| Slide |
Audience question |
Primary claim |
New concepts |
Evidence |
Layout |
Density risk |
Acceptance criteria
- Each S01–S22 layout documents a recommended information budget.
- The Skill requires a density review before delivery.
- The checklist distinguishes visual density, semantic density, and layout overflow.
- At least three before/after examples show under-filled, balanced, and overloaded slides.
- The workflow explains which checks can be automated and which require semantic review.
Examples or references
Observed in a real 17-slide DAG development deck: the HTML validator and browser overflow checks passed, but several slides still required manual restructuring because the amount and hierarchy of information did not match the selected layout.
Area
Documentation / workflow quality
What problem would this solve?
The current workflow validates layout registration, image slots, overflow, typography, spacing, and visual safety zones, but it does not evaluate whether a slide contains too much or too little information.
A deck can pass every structural and browser check while still feeling empty, overloaded, or poorly prioritized. This is especially visible when a large headline, six cards, explanatory copy, and KPI blocks compete on the same slide, or when an image-led slide adds almost no new information.
What do you want the Skill to do?
Add an explicit information-density QA stage before final visual validation.
Suggested scope:
Suggested planning contract:
Acceptance criteria
Examples or references
Observed in a real 17-slide DAG development deck: the HTML validator and browser overflow checks passed, but several slides still required manual restructuring because the amount and hierarchy of information did not match the selected layout.
Area
Documentation / workflow quality