DesignCommunity

slideops

Turn a repository into a slide deck that tells you when it stops matching the code

glukicovAdded Oct 3, 2026

Catalog skill by glukicov: Turn a repository into a slide deck that tells you when it stops matching the code Install into Cursor, Claude, Codex, or VS Code from this page or review the source for slideops.

Add to Cursor Add to VS Code Add to Claude Add to Codex View source

Ads

Installation

git clone https://github.com/glukicov/slideops

Install guides: Cursor skills, Claude Code skills, Codex skills, or VS Code Copilot skills.

Skill body

SlideOps: generate a deck from a repository, and keep it true

This skill has two jobs, and the second one is the point.

Build: turn a repository into a deck whose every claim came from the code, not from a model's impression of the code. Keep in sync: make that deck able to prove, months later, whether it still matches the repository, cheaply enough that nobody has to remember to care.

The mechanism joining them is a citation. Every quoted snippet records the file, the line range, and a hash of those source lines at build time, and the deck records the commit it was built from. That turns "is this deck still accurate?" from a question somebody has to answer by reading into a command that answers itself:

python3 scripts/check.py docs/slides/ --repo .

Standard library only. No model, no network, no tokens, milliseconds to run. Two scripts ship with this skill and do all of it: scripts/cite.py writes the citations while you build, and scripts/check.py reads them back afterwards. Writing the citations as you go (Step 3) is therefore not optional decoration: it is the entire reason the deck can be maintained instead of rewritten. See references/freshness.md for the mechanism and references/automation.md for wiring it into pull requests, scheduled refreshes, and agent hooks.

Which job is this?

The user wants a new deck: start at Step 0 below.
The user wants Markdown documentation instead of slides (a doc that lives in the repo and renders on GitHub, with the same citations and the same freshness check): follow references/markdown.md. It reuses this file's research, confidentiality, and refresh rules and swaps the build and verify steps; references/markdown-pdf.md covers exporting such a doc to PDF. Checking or refreshing an existing .md doc is the same check.py workflow as decks; sweeps pick both up together.
The user is asking whether an existing deck is still accurate, wants one refreshed, or wants the check automated: go straight to Refreshing an existing deck near the end. Do not rebuild a deck from scratch because a few slides drifted.

Produces a single self-contained HTML slide deck (no build step, no CDN dependencies): one 1280×720 slide per screen, click/arrow-key/URL-hash navigation, a progress bar and slide counter, an Esc-toggled overview grid (deep-linkable as #overview), optional per-slide speaker notes (<aside class="notes">, toggled with N, invisible in exports), and, on request, a paginated PDF export. Every slide is grounded in the real repository: real code snippets, real commands, real screenshots, real numbers. Nothing is invented to fill space.

A worked example ships with the skill: examples/skill-demo.html is a 17-slide deck about this skill, built by this skill, showing the patterns, all four theme presets on real decks, and an inlined Mermaid diagram.

Two starting points, chosen with the user up front:

General overview: what the project is, how to install/set it up, how to run it, its main features, its architecture at a glance. Mirrors a README/onboarding walkthrough.
Focused topic: one subsystem, one recent change, one architecture decision, one workflow. Goes deep rather than wide.

Step 0: Orient, then ask

Spend ~2 minutes scanning the repo before asking anything, so every question you ask is concrete and every option you offer actually exists: read the README and the manifest(s) that define the product (per-app in a monorepo), run git log --oneline -15 and glance at the top-level tree and docs/, and check whether docs/slides/ already has decks (open one: its title slide, theme and build stamp show the local conventions). Do not start slide research yet; this pass is only to ask good questions. The scan itself may hit stale doc pointers; note them and move on (Step 1's code-wins rule deals with drift later).

What you find shapes the candidates:

Existing decks remove or reframe candidates. A topic an existing deck already covers is off the proposal list, unless meaningful commits have landed since that deck's date, in which case offer "update the existing X deck" as its own candidate. Disclose the existing decks in one line at the top of the intake.
Skip meta noise in "why now". Recent commits about tooling, docs, or slide decks themselves don't justify a deck; reach back to the most recent product activity, and don't re-justify a candidate with work an existing deck already presents.

Then ask everything in one compact intake (use your environment's structured-question tool if it has one; otherwise a single message with lettered options). Mark the default in each list, skip any item the user already answered, and never exceed these six:

Topic. Propose 3-4 concrete candidates you found in the scan, each with a one-line "why now" (e.g. "v2.3 shipped last week: a what's-new deck", "the sync/ subsystem is the largest and undocumented: a deep dive", "no onboarding doc exists: a general overview"), plus "something else: tell me". Never ask a bare "what should the deck be about?": the scan is what makes this question answerable in one click. Mark as default the candidate you would genuinely bet the user wants given the repo's core domain and its deck history (a core subsystem with zero coverage usually beats a recently-changed-but-already-presented area), not mechanically the most recent change.
Audience and venue. New joiners (onboarding) · team sprint/standup · stakeholder or exec review · conference/meetup. This drives jargon level, pacing, and the Sizing row.
Length. Offer the Sizing table rows as time slots ("5-min lightning ≈ 8-15 slides", "20-min deep dive ≈ 12-20", "45-min onboarding ≈ 20-35").
Design. Theme menu from references/themes.md: Ledger Light (default) · Ledger Dark · midnight · graphite · match a brand (ask for the URL/style guide; fetch it for real per references/style-guide.md § Theming, never invent colors from a description). Optionally a font choice (themes.md § Font options) if the user signals caring about typography. If the user hesitates between themes or asks to see them, show rather than tell: copy the template, swap in each candidate preset's :root block, screenshot the title slide of each (the recipe in references/verification.md), and present the images side by side before they choose.
Scope and sensitive data. Confirm what the deck may draw on and who will see it: "internal team" and "conference talk" are different redaction bars. Name anything off-limits up front (unannounced features, customer names, internal hostnames). The defaults in "The confidentiality rule" below apply regardless of the answer.
Extras. Three independent toggles, so don't letter them as alternatives: state the defaults and ask the user to object to any ("PDF export: no · Mermaid diagrams: built-in flow boxes only (Mermaid needs one-time npx network access, see references/diagrams.md) · output: <repo>/docs/slides/<topic-slug>-<date>.html"). The deck (plus a PDF if asked for) is the only file this produces, so there is nothing else to agree on.

For "what changed" style decks, also pin the recency window (a date range or "since the last release") and resolve it with git log before writing anything, not from memory.

The outline checkpoint. After the first research pass, show the user a proposed topic list and slide flow (like a table of contents) and get a thumbs-up before writing any HTML: this is the single highest-leverage checkpoint. Building 25 slides around the wrong 6 topics wastes far more time than a 30-second review would have. Skip the checkpoint only when one of these observable conditions holds:

the user already gave you an explicit topic list or outline (not just scope/audience), or
you are running non-interactively (no user available to answer): proceed, and say in your final summary that the outline was not reviewed.

The confidentiality rule (applies to every step)

A deck is a document that leaves the repository: it gets emailed, screen-shared, and posted. Treat everything you put on a slide as public from the moment it is written.

Never read for slide content, and never quote: .env and any *.env*, key/certificate files (*.pem, *.key, id_rsa*, *.p12, service-account JSON), secrets/, credentials*, .npmrc/.pypirc/.netrc, CI secret definitions, production logs, database dumps, fixtures containing real customer data, and any path the repository's own ignore files exclude. If a file you need is on this list, describe its shape ("a service account JSON, mounted at runtime") instead of its content.

Redact even from files that are safe to quote: credentials, tokens, API keys, private hostnames and internal URLs, IP addresses, account and customer identifiers, personal names and emails that are not public contributors, and precise infrastructure paths where a generic description carries the same meaning. Replace with a clear placeholder (<project-id>, db.internal.example), never a plausible-looking fake.

Ask when it is the user's call, not yours: if a slide would be materially weaker without a detail that looks sensitive (an internal hostname in a diagram, a real customer count, an unannounced feature name), ask the user before including it, and say what you are about to expose. Silence is not consent.

Screenshots carry more than you think. A screenshot of a terminal, dashboard, or editor also captures window titles, file trees, branch names, ticket numbers, other tabs, and notifications. Crop to the region that makes the point, and read the image back before embedding it.

Verification includes a redaction scan of the finished artifacts: see references/verification.md § Redaction scan.

Step 1: Research (never skip, never approximate)

The deck is only as credible as its weakest verified claim. For every slide you plan to write:

Respect the confidentiality rule below when choosing what to open and what to quote: secrets, credentials, production logs, and real customer data are out of scope for slide content even when they would be interesting.
Read the real files. README(s), package manifest (pyproject.toml, package.json, go.mod, …), the actual source of anything you plan to quote or diagram, existing architecture docs, existing agent-instruction files (CLAUDE.md, .agents/skills/, .claude/skills/, and similar: these often already describe real user-facing capabilities accurately, a goldmine for "say to your assistant" style bubbles).
Prefer code intelligence / grep+view over guessing. If you're about to describe a class, a config schema, a CLI flag, or a directory layout, go find it and read it. If you can't find where a claim comes from, don't make the claim.
When the repo's own docs contradict its code, the code wins. Docs drift; verify any doc-sourced claim against the current source before putting it on a slide, and if the drift is itself notable, say so on the slide rather than repeating the stale claim.
For "what's new" / recent-changes decks: use git log --oneline --since=... -- path (and git log -p for real diff content) to ground every "shipped this month" claim in an actual commit, not a vague impression. Cross-check version bumps (e.g. pyproject.toml history) against the commits that produced them. A file added inside your window may already be deleted again by a later commit: git show <commit>:<path> recovers it, and the deletion may itself be worth a slide note.
For architecture/flow diagrams: trace the real call path (imports, function calls, the actual sequence a request follows) rather than inferring structure from the file tree alone. A plausible-looking but wrong diagram is worse than a smaller, correct one. For rendering (built-in flow boxes vs pre-rendered Mermaid SVG), see references/diagrams.md.
For screenshots/plots: use only real artifacts: a real chart the repo's own tooling produced, a real trace/log screenshot, a real terminal output. If a genuinely useful image doesn't exist yet, either generate it by actually running the repo's own code (reuse its existing plotting/export/reporting functions against real data on disk rather than writing new ad hoc plotting code) or fall back to a non-image pattern; never fabricate a fake chart.
Delegate research for large/unfamiliar repos. If the repo is large or you're unfamiliar with it, a read-only exploration sub-agent pass ("find the CLI entry points, the README, the test/dataset conventions, and any existing architecture docs") is worth it before drafting the topic list, if your environment provides sub-agents. Don't delegate the actual slide writing: that needs your own judgment about pacing and what's genuinely interesting.

Step 2: Draft the topic list

Before writing HTML, sketch the flow as a short outline (title → agenda → N sections, each with 2-6 slides → close) and share it per the outline checkpoint above. A well-paced deck opens with a title slide, an agenda, and 2-3 "the project in one picture" slides (what it is, one or two real results/screenshots), then either a section-divider-led deep dive per topic (for a general/multi-topic deck) or straight into content (for a focused deck), and ends on a closing/roadmap slide. Typical density: 1 idea per slide; resist cramming two ideas onto one slide just to save a slide.

Sizing

Section dividers count toward the slide budget.

Deck type	Rough slide count	Section dividers?
Lightning update (one topic, one meeting)	8-15	No, straight into content
Focused deep dive (one subsystem/feature)	12-20	Optional, only if it has 2+ sub-topics
General overview / onboarding	20-35	Yes, one per major section

Step 3: Build

Copy assets/template.html to the output path. It already has the full verified CSS + navigation JS; do not rewrite either from scratch. All slide markup lives between the  and  markers; everything outside them stays untouched (a scripted splice against those markers is the easiest way to replace the body in one pass), with two exceptions: set the <head>'s <title> to the real deck title, and swap the :root theme block if the user chose a non-default theme (references/themes.md).
Work through your topic list slide by slide, copying the matching PATTERN: block from the template for each slide (title, agenda, section-divider, prose+cards, image+caption, table, before/after code, single annotated snippet, flow diagram, chat-bubble examples, lane comparison, closing: see the template's own comments for when to use which) and replacing every bracketed placeholder with real, verified content. Delete every pattern block you didn't end up using; delete the illustrative comments too once real content replaces them.
Cite every snippet as you write it, with the script, never by hand:
```
python3 scripts/cite.py app/main.py:40-58 --repo <repo> --snippet
```
It prints the data-src / data-sha256 pair to paste onto the <pre>, warns when the lines are too wide for the pattern you chose, and with --snippet prints the source already HTML-escaped. Stamp the build commit once, when the deck is otherwise finished:
```
python3 scripts/cite.py --stamp <deck.html> --repo <repo>
```
A hand-computed hash is worse than no hash: it silently reports CHANGED months later and nobody can tell whether the code moved or the build was sloppy. Same for the date, which is easy to invent and impossible to verify afterwards. Cite anything you quote or assert from one place; prose summarising a whole subsystem needs no citation. See references/freshness.md.
HTML-escape every verbatim snippet: & → &, < → <, > → > inside <pre>/<code>. Unescaped source code (generics, arrows, includes) silently corrupts the markup downstream. Mind snippet line width too: see references/style-guide.md § Code snippets.
Follow every rule in references/style-guide.md as you write: sentence case, no em dashes in prose, tag accuracy, real-content-only, rather than fixing it all in a pass at the end.
Keep slide numbering visible to yourself: an HTML comment  above each <section class="slide">. Comments are 0-indexed; the URL hash and the on-screen counter are 1-indexed. Worked example:  is display slide 7, reached at deck.html#7. Renumber the comments any time you insert or delete a slide, and when the user later says "slide 12", re-derive which section that is from the file itself (grep -n '<!-- [0-9]*:' deck.html) rather than trusting a remembered count: a stale comment index is a fast path to editing the wrong slide.

Step 4: Verify (every single slide, every single edit)

Do not consider the deck done until you've actually looked at it. This is not optional polish: run for the first time on any deck, this step reliably catches real bugs: broken image paths, text overlapping the nav pill, tables overflowing their card, stale slide numbering, wrong aggregate numbers.

Render every slide to an image with headless Chrome and look at each one. Chrome discovery is platform-dependent: use the cross-platform recipe in references/verification.md, which also covers staging directories (always a fresh per-deck directory, never fixed shared paths: parallel deck builds collide) and a faster batched screenshot loop.
View each screenshot. Check specifically for: text clipped by or overlapping the bottom nav pill, cards/boxes stretching to fill unexpected empty space (add the fill class only where stretching is wanted; the grids default to content height), tables or code blocks overflowing their container, and images that failed to load (a small broken-image icon with visible alt text, almost always a relative-path problem: see the PDF workflow note in verification.md).
Check citations resolve before shipping: python3 scripts/check.py <deck> --repo <repo> should report every citation CURRENT. Anything else means the deck is already stale on the day it was built: CHANGED means you quoted something and then it moved under you (or the hash was hand-computed), UNVERIFIED means a snippet has no hash at all. Both are build defects, not future problems. Fix them now with scripts/cite.py.

Check structural balance after every edit: a stray unclosed <div> breaks everything downstream silently:

python3 -c "
import re
c = open('deck.html').read()
print('section:', len(re.findall(r'<section class=\"slide', c)), len(re.findall(r'</section>', c)))
print('div:', len(re.findall(r'<div', c)), len(re.findall(r'</div>', c)))
"

Fix what you find, re-screenshot those slides, confirm the fix. Clean up every temp screenshot/scratch file when you're done: nothing but the deck (+ optional PDF) should remain.

Step 5: Optional PDF export

If asked for a PDF, use the companion slides-to-pdf skill (distributed alongside this one; its SKILL.md is the full self-contained recipe if it isn't installed as a skill). It screenshots every slide at 2x, prints a page-per-slide PDF with a centred page number on every page, and verifies the result by rendering the PDF back to images, which is required because headless Chrome cannot rasterize a local PDF for a visual check and image pages can be silently blank.

Step 6: Ship it, and say how to keep it honest

The deck is the only file you leave behind. Do not write a companion README.md, index, summary or notes file next to it, and do not add the deck to an existing one unless the user asks: the deck already states what it covers, the build stamp already records where it came from, and a hand-written sidecar is one more thing to go stale. If the repo already keeps such an index and the user wants it updated, that is their call to make, not a default.

Everything that would have gone in that file belongs in your final message instead: what the deck covers, its slide count, where it was written, how to view and navigate it (click, arrow keys, Esc for the overview, N for notes) and, since decks get edited slide-by-slide over many follow-up requests, one paragraph on how the file is structured for future edits (the pattern-block/comment-numbering conventions above).

Tell the user, in that same message, how to find out when the deck has gone stale:

python3 scripts/check.py <deck-or-folder> --repo <repo> --suggest

Then ask whether this deck should be kept in sync, and make it concrete rather than leaving it as a suggestion. The answer depends on what kind of document it is, so say so:

Evergreen (onboarding, architecture, anything linked from a README): offer to add the pull-request check from references/automation.md. Report-only first (--exit-zero), so it annotates a PR without blocking anyone. Vendor check.py into the repo (tools/slideops-check.py), because it is one dependency-free standard-library file and the deck's repo should not depend on a skill being installed.
A snapshot (sprint update, "what shipped in March", a conference talk): recommend not automating it. It describes a moment and is supposed to freeze. Say this out loud rather than silently skipping it.

Do not propose blocking every commit. A docs check on the fast path trains people to pass --no-verify, and drift is a review-time concern. The reasoning, the workflow files, the advisory hook variants, and the delegated-refresh recipe are all in references/automation.md.

Refreshing an existing deck

When the user asks whether a deck is still accurate, or wants one brought back in line, repair it; do not rebuild it. A rebuild throws away the pacing, the narrative and the review that went into the original, and costs far more than fixing three slides.

Detect, for free. Sweep the folder and read the result:
```
python3 scripts/check.py docs/slides/ --repo . --json
```
This costs no tokens and no model call. The JSON is a complete repair brief: per stale citation it carries the status, the unified diff, the commits that caused it, the corrected data-src/data-sha256, and the current source. Read that instead of re-reading the repository. If nothing is stale, say so and stop: that is the common case and it should be cheap.
Triage by status, because they need different work:
- MOVED: the code is identical, only the line numbers shifted. Update the two attributes. Do not touch the slide's prose, and do not re-verify visually: nothing rendered changed.
- CHANGED: read the diff and the commit subjects. A rename needs a re-quote; a deleted branch of logic may have killed the claim the slide makes. Decide about the claim first, then the snippet.
- MISSING: the file is gone. The slide is probably obsolete. Find where it went (git log --diff-filter=D -- <path>) and ask the user before deleting a slide.
- UNVERIFIED: no hash was recorded. Re-cite it with scripts/cite.py so it is checkable from now on.
Repair only what drifted. Edit those slides, re-trim snippets to the width budget (references/style-guide.md § Code snippets), and leave every other slide alone.
Re-stamp and re-verify. python3 scripts/cite.py --stamp <deck> --repo ., then check.py until clean, then re-screenshot only the slides you touched (Step 4): a longer snippet can push content under the nav pill. Re-export the PDF only if one exists.
Report what changed and why. Name the slides you edited, the commits that caused the drift, and anything you judged still-true-despite-the-diff. That last category is where a human may disagree with you, so surface it rather than burying it.

name: slideops
description: Use when the user asks for slides, a slide deck, or a presentation about a code repository, one of its subsystems, a feature, an architecture area, or its recent changes. Triggers include "make slides", "build a slide deck", "create a presentation", "HTML slides for this repo", "overview deck", "team update slides", "slides for our latest changes", or naming a topic and asking for a deck about it. Also use when the user asks whether an existing deck still matches the code, or wants one rechecked, refreshed, or kept in sync automatically: "is this deck still accurate", "check the slides against the code", "did anything we documented change", "refresh the architecture deck", "these docs are stale", "fail the build when the deck stops matching the code", or asks to wire that check into CI, a pull request, or an agent hook. Also use for Markdown documentation instead of slides ("write markdown docs", "a design doc with citations", "docs that know when they go stale"), including PDF export of a doc.
license: MIT
compatibility: Needs a headless Chrome or Chromium binary (Playwright cache or system install) and Python 3 for the verification pass. Reads the target repository with git. Network access only if you opt into Mermaid diagrams (one npx download) or brand-colour extraction; everything else works offline.
metadata: —

slideops

Installation

Skill body

SlideOps: generate a deck from a repository, and keep it true

Which job is this?

Step 0: Orient, then ask

The confidentiality rule (applies to every step)

Step 1: Research (never skip, never approximate)

Step 2: Draft the topic list

Sizing

Step 3: Build

Step 4: Verify (every single slide, every single edit)

Step 5: Optional PDF export

Step 6: Ship it, and say how to keep it honest

Refreshing an existing deck

Related skills

Skill body

Skill body

SlideOps: generate a deck from a repository, and keep it true

Which job is this?

Step 0: Orient, then ask

The confidentiality rule (applies to every step)

Step 1: Research (never skip, never approximate)

Step 2: Draft the topic list

Sizing

Step 3: Build

Step 4: Verify (every single slide, every single edit)

Step 5: Optional PDF export

Step 6: Ship it, and say how to keep it honest

Refreshing an existing deck

Related skills