Improve an existing BP without silently changing its business facts. This skill can be used before deck production, after rendering, or in a correction loop.
Modes
| Mode | Input | Focus |
|---|---|---|
content |
Outline / Markdown | Product definition, story, copy, page rhythm |
evidence |
Outline + ledger/sources | Claims, metrics, TAM/SAM/SOM, assumptions |
visual |
PPTX/PDF/slide images | Hierarchy, charts, layout, branding, QR codes |
full |
Any complete BP workspace | All dimensions + correction loop |
Infer the smallest useful mode from the request. Do not require a PDF when the user only wants the outline reviewed.
Output Contract
business-plan/
├── reports/bp-review.md
├── outline.md # patched only when authorized by the request
├── deck-manifest.md # updated for visual fixes
└── revised slide/deck assets # only affected artifacts
Workflow (MANDATORY)
Step 0: Resolve source and mode
Resolve this SKILL.md directory as SKILL_DIR. Inspect the supplied source and any
existing BP workspace. Reuse audience, stage, style, and evidence definitions.
If multiple review modes are plausible, prefill from the user's wording. Ask one
compact question only when the choice materially changes the work. "Unprofessional" defaults
to full; "text is too technical" defaults to content; "charts don't look good" defaults to visual.
Read references/review-rubric.md, references/charts-and-visuals.md, and
references/user-config.md as relevant.
Step 1: Run deterministic outline audit
When an outline exists:
python3 "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/audit_bp.py" \
--input ./business-plan/outline.md \
--output ./business-plan/reports/bp-review.md
Use --strict before final delivery. The script checks structure and evidence
hygiene; it does not replace investor judgment or visual inspection.
Step 2: Review as four adversaries
- Non-technical investor — can the product be repeated after ten seconds?
- Category expert — which product/competition claims are naive or imprecise?
- Skeptical partner — which core claims lack proof or overstate traction?
- Design director — where does layout reduce trust or distort meaning?
For every issue record slide, severity, why it matters, and exact revision.
Step 3: Protect facts during polishing
- Never make numbers “look better”.
- Never turn an assumption into a fact.
- Never invent a customer quote or testimonial.
- Never widen TAM without a buyer and price bridge.
- Never change a product boundary solely to improve the story.
If a revision needs new evidence, mark an evidence blocker and return it to
lovstudio-bp-outline.
Step 4: Inspect rendered slides
For visual/full mode, create or inspect a contact sheet and every page at normal presentation size. Check:
- one conclusion per page;
- body text at least 20 pt;
- optical alignment and whitespace;
- chart axes, units, legends, dates, and sources;
- genuine, legible product screenshots;
- unstretched images and logos;
- no clipped text or broken CJK;
- QR codes decoded from final rendered pages;
- clean cover and one-action final page;
- matching PPTX/PDF page counts and normalized filenames.
Step 5: Apply targeted fixes
Classify each fix:
- copy fix — patch outline and regenerate affected slides;
- evidence blocker — update ledger/source before rewriting;
- visual defect — change layout/style or regenerate affected slides only.
Do not regenerate the whole deck for a one-page issue. Repeat audit → fix → audit for at most three cycles.
Step 6: Deliver the report
Lead with verdict and score, then blockers, page-level findings, evidence gaps,
visual QA, and delivery status. Use assets/templates/bp-review.md.
Target: 85+ with no blocker. A high numeric score never overrides fabricated data, missing financing ask, broken source, unreadable slide, or invalid QR code.