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