slide-excellence

Slide Excellence Review

Run a comprehensive multi-dimensional review of research presentation slides. Multiple agents analyze the file independently, then results are synthesized.

Steps

1. Identify the File

Parse $ARGUMENTS for the filename. Resolve path in docs/conferences/.

2. Run Review Agents in Parallel

Agent 1: Visual Audit (slide-auditor)

• Overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, spacing, images
• Save: docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_visual_audit.md

Agent 2: Econometric Fidelity Review (econometrics-reviewer)

• Every quantitative claim on slides must be traceable to the paper (docs/overleaf/_main.tex)
• Check: coefficients, standard errors, sample sizes, p-values match paper tables/figures
• Check: identification strategy correctly described (hedonic pricing, repeat sales, long-difference, DiD, upstream/downstream)
• Check: treatment variables defined correctly (spill_count/spill_hrs, 12/24hr counting methodology)
• Check: confidence intervals and significance stars consistent with paper
• Check: no causal language without identification support
• Save: docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_econometrics_report.md

Agent 3: Proofreading (proofreader)

• Grammar, typos, consistency, academic quality, citations
• Save: docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_report.md

Agent 4: TikZ Review (only if file contains TikZ)

• Label overlaps, geometric accuracy, visual semantics
• Save: docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_tikz_review.md

Agent 5: Substance Review (domain correctness)

• Verify environmental economics claims are accurate
• Check EDM/water company institutional context is correct
• Verify spatial econometrics descriptions match methodology
• Check hedonic pricing theory correctly invoked
• Verify England housing market characterisation
• Save: docs/conferences/quality_reports/[FILE]_substance_review.md

3. Synthesize Combined Summary

# Slide Excellence Review: [Filename]

## Overall Quality Score: [EXCELLENT / GOOD / NEEDS WORK / POOR]

| Dimension | Critical | Medium | Low |
|-----------|----------|--------|-----|
| Visual/Layout | | | |
| Econometric Fidelity | | | |
| Proofreading | | | |
| Substance | | | |

### Critical Issues (Immediate Action Required)
### Medium Issues (Next Revision)
### Recommended Next Steps

Quality Score Rubric

| Score | Critical | Medium | Meaning |

|-------|----------|--------|---------|

| Excellent | 0-2 | 0-5 | Ready to present |

| Good | 3-5 | 6-15 | Minor refinements |

| Needs Work | 6-10 | 16-30 | Significant revision |

| Poor | 11+ | 31+ | Major restructuring |