Audit a PowerPoint presentation for layout issues

PPTX Slide Auditor Skill

Runs a systematic visual and structural audit of a PowerPoint presentation — identifying layout issues, text overflow, inconsistent styling, weak visual hierarchy, and slides that will cause problems in a presentation setting. Built to leverage Opus 4.7 vision improvements for pixel-level layout analysis.

Required Inputs

Ask the user for these if not provided:

• The deck (upload the .pptx file or individual slide screenshots)
• Audience (internal team / executive / external client / conference / investor)
• Presentation mode (presented live / sent to read / shared async on video)
• Areas of concern (optional — e.g. "I think slide 12 is overcrowded")

Output Structure

1. Deck Overview

Metric	Result
Total slides	N
Overall status	Ready / Minor fixes needed / Major revisions required
Readability score	/10
Visual consistency score	/10
Most common issue	[Pattern observed across multiple slides]

2. Slide-by-Slide Audit

For each slide with issues:

Slide N: [Slide title]

• Status: Ready / Fix before sending / Major revision
• Issues found:
  • [Specific issue with exact location — e.g. "Body text extends beyond the text frame on the right side"]
  • [Issue 2]
• Suggested fix: [Specific action — move element, reduce text, resize]

Slides with no issues: just list the slide numbers. Do not write anything else about them.

3. Pattern Issues Across the Deck

Issues that repeat across multiple slides:

[Pattern title — e.g. "Inconsistent body text size"]

• Slides affected: [list]
• Root cause: [master slide issue / manual overrides / mixed templates]
• Fix: [Single action to resolve across all affected slides]

4. Visual Hierarchy Check

Dimension	Status	Notes
Title consistency (size, font, colour)	Pass / Fail
Body text readability at presentation distance	Pass / Fail
Image placement alignment	Pass / Fail
Whitespace and breathing room	Pass / Fail
Data visualisation clarity	Pass / Fail / N/A

5. Audience-Specific Flags

Based on the stated audience:

• Executive audience: flag slides with too much text, complex tables, or unclear bottom-line messages
• External client: flag slides with internal jargon, unfinished placeholder text, or confidentiality concerns
• Live presentation: flag slides that will be hard to read from the back of a room
• Async/video: flag slides that assume a presenter voiceover

6. Prioritised Fix List

#	Fix	Slide	Effort	Impact
1	[Specific fix]	Slide N	Low/Med/High	High

Order by: fixes before handoff (critical) > consistency fixes (high) > polish (medium).

Quality Checks

• Every issue references a specific slide number and location on the slide
• Pattern issues are identified separately from slide-specific issues
• Fix list is ordered by impact, not by slide order
• Audience-appropriate concerns flagged explicitly
• Slides without issues are listed briefly, not ignored

Anti-Patterns

• Do not flag stylistic preferences as issues — only report genuine layout problems, overflow, and consistency errors
• Do not produce a flat list of issues — group by severity (Critical / Major / Minor) so fixes can be prioritised
• Do not skip slides without commenting — every slide must have an explicit pass or issue status
• Do not suggest redesigning content — the audit scope is layout, consistency, and readability, not messaging
• Do not report the same issue type repeatedly across slides without summarising the pattern — consolidate repeated issues

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Audit this slide deck before my board meeting"
• "Review this PowerPoint for layout issues"
• "Check this presentation for consistency problems"
• "QA my deck before I send it to the client"
• "What is wrong with slide 7 in this deck?"

Why This Works Better on Opus 4.7

Earlier models struggled with precise spatial analysis of slide layouts — they would hallucinate issues or miss obvious overflow problems. Opus 4.7 vision improvements mean coordinates map 1:1 to pixels, making slide-level issue detection reliable without manual screenshot annotation.