infometa/workbuddyskills/check-deck

IB Deck Checker

Perform comprehensive QC on investment banking presentations across four dimensions.

Prerequisites

Extract presentation content before checking:

python -m markitdown presentation.pptx > content.md

For visual inspection, convert to images using the pptx skill workflow.

Check Workflow

1. Number Consistency

Extract numbers with slide references:

python scripts/extract_numbers.py content.md --check

Verify:

• Key metrics match across all slides (revenue, EBITDA, multiples)
• Calculations are correct (totals, percentages, growth rates)
• Units consistent (same scale used: millions vs billions, % vs bps)
• Unit formatting consistent (e.g., $M vs $MM, $B vs $Bn - pick one style throughout)
• Time periods aligned (FY vs LTM vs quarterly)

Flag pattern:

ISSUE: Revenue mismatch
- $500M on Slides 3, 8
- $485M on Slide 15 (DCF input)
ACTION: Reconcile figures

2. Data-Narrative Alignment

Map claims to supporting data:

• Trend statements → chart directions
• Market position claims → revenue/share data
• Factual assertions → verify accuracy

Flag contradictions:

ISSUE: Narrative contradicts data
- Slide 4: "declining margins"
- Slide 7 chart: margins 18% → 22%
ACTION: Update narrative or verify data

Check plausibility (e.g., "#1 player in $100B market" with $200M revenue = 0.2% share).

3. Language Polish

Scan for:

• Casual phrasing ("pretty good", "a lot of")
• Vague quantifiers without specifics
• Contractions, exclamation points
• Inconsistent terminology

See references/ib-terminology.md for replacement patterns.

Flag pattern:

ISSUE: Casual language (Slide 12)
- "This deal is a no-brainer"
→ "The transaction presents a compelling value proposition"

4. Formatting QC

Audit each slide for:

• Charts: Source citations, axis labels, legends
• Typography: Consistent fonts, size hierarchy
• Numbers: Consistent formatting (1,000 vs 1K)
• Dates: Consistent format throughout
• Footnotes: Proper sourcing and disclaimers

Output

Present findings using the template in references/report-format.md.

Categorize by severity:

• Critical: Number mismatches, factual errors
• Important: Language, narrative alignment
• Minor: Formatting inconsistencies