codeck-review

<!-- [INPUT]: Depends on rendered HTML, DESIGN.md, deck content, MEMORY.md, and threads/threads.md. [OUTPUT]: Provides review.md, scoped fixes, and user-owned decisions for unresolved issues. [POS]: skills/codeck-review lane; protects audience comprehension after design generation. [PROTOCOL]: 变更时更新此头部，然后检查 CLAUDE.md -->

codeck review — @review lane

@review owns audience resistance, quality review, and scoped fixes.

Write boundaries:

• May write $DECK_DIR/review.md
• May fix $DECK_DIR/slides.html and $DECK_DIR/custom.css when the issue is scoped and source-backed
• May update $DECK_DIR/roles/review.md, $DECK_DIR/tasks/tasks.md, and $DECK_DIR/channel/YYYY-MM-DD.md
• Must not rewrite deck.md, DESIGN.md, speech.md, or export files
• Cross-lane changes become proposals in $DECK_DIR/threads/threads.md

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

DECK_DIR="$HOME/.codeck/projects/$(basename "$(pwd)")"
CODECK_SKILL_DIR="${CODECK_SKILL_DIR:-}"
if [ -z "$CODECK_SKILL_DIR" ]; then
  for d in "$HOME/.agents/skills/codeck" "$HOME/.codex/skills/codeck" "$HOME/.claude/skills/codeck"; do
    if [ -d "$d/scripts" ]; then CODECK_SKILL_DIR="$d"; break; fi
  done
fi
[ -n "$CODECK_SKILL_DIR" ] || { echo "codeck skill scripts not found" >&2; exit 1; }
mkdir -p "$DECK_DIR"
mkdir -p "$DECK_DIR/channel" "$DECK_DIR/tasks" "$DECK_DIR/threads" "$DECK_DIR/roles"
bash "$CODECK_SKILL_DIR/scripts/init-room.sh" "$DECK_DIR"
bash "$CODECK_SKILL_DIR/scripts/status.sh" "$DECK_DIR"

Gate check: a valid assembled HTML is a self-contained engine deck, not merely any ./*-r*.html file.

Valid assembled HTML must:

• contain openPresenter
• contain codeck-presenter
• contain BroadcastChannel
• contain no <link rel="stylesheet" ...> for a sibling deck CSS file

If no valid assembled HTML exists and $DECK_DIR/custom.css + $DECK_DIR/slides.html exist, re-run build-html.sh. If the latest *-r*.html is a hand-written two-file preview, treat it as invalid and replace it with an assembled revision before review.

Context

Read $DECK_DIR/MEMORY.md, active rows in $DECK_DIR/tasks/tasks.md, and open rows in $DECK_DIR/threads/threads.md. Do not read channel/YYYY-MM-DD.md unless debugging history. Read $DECK_DIR/deck.md — page structure, user intent. Ignore legacy outline.md; if deck.md is missing, route back to /codeck. Read $DECK_DIR/roles/design.md — current design skeleton, lane memory, and handoff guardrails. 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: respond to the latest @design handoff and the selected skeleton in your activated role's voice.

Before review, claim the work ticket:

@orchestrator
Owner: @review. Task: inspect rendered deck and fix scoped issues.

@review
I claim the review pass. I will write `review.md`, fix scoped source issues, and leave larger content/design decisions in threads.

Append the exchange to today's channel file and update tasks/tasks.md.

Target

Review the assembled HTML (./{file-stem}-r{N}.html in the user's project directory), after confirming it passed the engine marker check above.

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 deck.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.md and roles/design.md 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) is not inconsistency — check DESIGN.md and roles/design.md

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 in the installed 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 and the selected skeleton 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.md or roles/design.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. Do not use Decision Ask for light review, HTML generation, saving, or final build.

Only create a Decision Ask when there is a real user-owned decision: conflicting source materials, mutually exclusive claims, legal/commercial wording, or a style tradeoff that changes the deck direction. Record it in threads/threads.md before rendering it; if no structured AskUser UI is available and the decision is blocking, stop before changing the owned source artifact.

1. Determine: custom.css or slides.html
2. Edit the file
3. Run build-html.sh

CODECK_DESIGN_DIR="${CODECK_DESIGN_DIR:-}"
if [ -z "$CODECK_DESIGN_DIR" ]; then
  for d in "$HOME/.agents/skills/codeck-design" "$HOME/.codex/skills/codeck-design" "$HOME/.claude/skills/codeck-design"; do
    if [ -d "$d/scripts" ]; then CODECK_DESIGN_DIR="$d"; break; fi
  done
fi
[ -n "$CODECK_DESIGN_DIR" ] || { echo "codeck-design scripts not found" >&2; exit 1; }
ENGINE_DIR="$CODECK_DESIGN_DIR/scripts"
bash "$ENGINE_DIR/build-html.sh" "$DECK_DIR" "{file-stem}" "{language}" "."

Review fixes create a new validated revision. Max 3 rounds.

Decision summary

Write the latest valid review findings and fixes to $DECK_DIR/review.md. If the current HTML was not built through build-html.sh or is stale, mark prior findings superseded before writing the new review:

# Review

## Summary
{N} issues found. {N} fixed automatically.

## Fixes
- {slide/file}: {what changed and why}

## Needs user decision
{none | conflict that cannot be resolved without user judgment}

If a finding needs @outline or @design to change their owned source beyond a scoped fix, add it to threads/threads.md and hand off the task. Do not silently rewrite their owned artifact.

Review is not complete until all five are true:

• review.md exists
• scoped fixes, if any, have been rebuilt into the latest validated HTML
• latest HTML contains speaker mode engine markers and has no external stylesheet link
• tasks/tasks.md marks the review ticket done
• $DECK_DIR/.reviewed has been touched after the latest HTML write

After review:

1. Update MEMORY.md Active Context, Latest Channel Summary, Task Index, and Artifacts.
2. Mark the @review task done in tasks/tasks.md.
3. Append the handoff to today's channel file:

@review
I wrote `review.md`, fixed scoped issues, and marked remaining decisions in threads. Next owner: @export or @speech.

Done

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

codeck review done. Fixed {N} issues. @review I inspected the rendered deck, fixed scoped issues, and left unresolved decisions in threads. 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 PDF or /codeck speech script

touch "$DECK_DIR/.reviewed"