Agent Skills
› mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills
› exec-vs-working-deck
exec-vs-working-deck
GitHub将长篇工作演示文稿压缩为高管专用的精简版（6-10页）。遵循答案优先原则，提取核心证据与风险，构建压缩映射表，并制定附录策略以应对深度问答，确保高管聚焦结论而非分析过程。
Trigger Scenarios
如何将分析报告转化为高管版本
如何从40页PPT压缩至10分钟演讲
高管在演示中真正想要什么
领导层汇报效果不佳需优化
Install
npx skills add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills --skill exec-vs-working-deck -g -y
SKILL.md
Frontmatter
{
"name": "exec-vs-working-deck",
"homepage": "https:\/\/mohitagw15856.github.io\/pm-claude-skills\/skill\/exec-vs-working-deck.html",
"metadata": {
"openclaw": {
"emoji": "🧠"
}
},
"description": "Stop presenting the working deck to executives — the two-deck split (answer-first exec cut vs. exploration-rich working deck), the compression rules from 40 slides to 8, and the appendix strategy that keeps the depth one click away. Use when asked turn this analysis into an exec version, my leadership readout went badly, how do I compress 40 slides to 10 minutes, or what do execs actually want in a deck. Produces the exec cut with the answer-first order, the compression map (what survived, where the rest went), and the Q&A appendix plan."
}
Exec Vs Working Deck Skill
The working deck — forty slides of exploration, methodology, and dead ends — is a diary of the analysis. Presenting it to executives narrates the journey chronologically, landing the answer at slide 34 of a meeting that ended attention-wise at slide 6. The exec cut inverts the geometry: the answer first (slide 2 at the latest), the three pieces of evidence that carry it, the risks and the ask — 6–10 slides — with the working deck demoted to appendix, where it does its real executive job: existing, as the visible proof of rigor behind every Q&A answer ("slide 24 has that cohort — here").
What This Skill Produces
- The exec cut — answer-first, 6–10 slides, built from the working deck's strongest material
- The compression map — every working-deck section: promoted / compressed to a line / appendixed / cut
- The appendix strategy — the Q&A-ordered depth, indexed so retrieval is instant in the room
- The two-deck discipline — when each artifact is used, so the working deck stops leaking into exec rooms
Required Inputs
Ask for these if not provided:
- The working deck (or analysis) — the source material; the cut is extraction, not new writing
- The answer, committed: the exec cut requires the author to have a conclusion — "here's what we found, you decide" working decks first need the conclusion conversation (executive-summary BLUF discipline; no cut can rescue an uncommitted analysis)
- The executives' currencies — what this audience weighs (growth? risk? cost?) — the three surviving evidence pieces are chosen in their currency
- The likely hard questions — each one gets its appendix slide, pre-ordered by likelihood
Framework: The Split Rules
- Answer at slide 2: slide 1 orients (the question we set out to answer), slide 2 answers it, unhedged — everything after is evidence, risk, and the ask. The chronological reveal ("first we looked at…") is the working deck's structure leaking; executives fund conclusions, not journeys.
- Three evidence pieces, chosen not accumulated: the working deck's twelve supporting analyses compress to the three that carry the most weight in the audience's currency — each as one deck-outline-first claim-slide. The other nine live in the appendix, alive and retrievable, not deleted (slide-density-rules redistribution, applied at deck scale).
- Methodology becomes one line plus a pointer: "12 cohorts, 18 months, methodology in appendix A" — rigor gets asserted and evidenced-on-demand, not walked through. The exception: when the method IS the controversy (a contested model), it earns one slide, framed as the credibility answer.
- Risks and the ask close, always: the exec cut ends with the risks conceded (proposal-skeleton objections logic) and the specific ask — decision, resource, date. Working decks trail off into "next steps"; exec cuts land on a decision point.
- The appendix is a product, not a dump: ordered by question-likelihood (the hard questions' slides first), each appendix slide self-sufficient and findable in seconds ("slide 24" said confidently is worth two slides of preemptive defense). The in-room move — answer briefly, offer the depth — makes the appendix's existence do the persuading.
Output Format
Exec Cut: [analysis] — [N] slides + appendix · audience currency: [their weights]
The Cut (slide order)
- The question · 2. The answer · 3–5. The three evidence claims · 6. Risks conceded · 7. The ask [Each slide as its headline claim]
The Compression Map
| Working-deck section | Fate | Where |
|---|---|---|
| [Promoted / one-line / appendix-# / cut] |
The Appendix Plan
[Q&A-ordered: likely question → its slide · the index card for in-room retrieval]
Quality Checks
- The answer lands by slide 2, unhedged
- Exactly three evidence pieces survived, chosen in the audience's currency
- Methodology compressed to assertion-plus-pointer (unless it's the controversy)
- The cut ends in risks and a specific ask
- The appendix is question-ordered and indexed for live retrieval
Anti-Patterns
- Do not present the diary — the journey structure is for the team that took it
- Do not hedge the answer to seem balanced — the risks slide is where balance lives; slide 2 is where the answer does
- Do not delete the depth — appendixed rigor answers Q&A; deleted rigor becomes "we'll get back to you"
- Do not walk through methodology uninvited — assert, evidence on demand
- Do not build the exec cut before committing to the answer — compression can't rescue an analysis that won't conclude
Version History
- 471c606 Current 2026-07-22 13:24
