Generates 3-4 strategic talk angles with strength/weakness analysis, title options, CFP descriptions, and a peer feedback draft, then enforces a mandatory CHECKPOINT for user confirmation before scripting. Use when deciding how to frame a talk, preparing a CFP submission, or choosing between multiple narrative angles.
68
85%
Does it follow best practices?
Run evals on this skill
Adds up to 20 points to the overall score
View guide
Passed
No findings from the security scan
Generates strategic angles, titles, descriptions, and a peer-feedback draft. Then stops and waits for your angle + title choice before Stage 5 can proceed.
talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-summary.md (required)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-concepts.md (required)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-angles.mdtalks/{YYYY}-{slug}-titre.mdtalks/{YYYY}-{slug}-descriptions.mdtalks/{YYYY}-{slug}-feedback-draft.md# Talk Angles: {provisional title}
**Goal**: Choose the angle that maximizes impact for {audience}.
**Audience**: {audience description}
---
## Angle 1: {Angle name}
**Pitch**: {2-3 sentences describing the talk from this angle}
**Strengths**:
- {strength 1}
- {strength 2}
**Weaknesses**:
- {weakness 1}
- {weakness 2}
**Audience fit**: Strong / Medium / Weak ({short justification})
**Verdict**: (out of 5 stars)
---
[Angle 2, Angle 3, (optional Angle 4): same structure]
---
## Recommendation: Angle {X}, enriched by the others
**Angle {X} is the right choice.** Here's why:
### 1. It's the only angle that integrates the others
[Structure showing how other angles feed into the main one]
### 2. The narrative arc is natural and compelling
[Why the story holds better with this angle]
### 3. The metrics lend credibility throughout
[Which metrics support this angle most]
### 4. The final message emerges naturally
[How the conclusion flows from this angle]
---
## Recommended structure with sub-angles
| Act | Duration | Main angle | Integrated sub-angle |
|-----|----------|-----------|---------------------|
| 1. {name} | {n} min | {main angle} | {sub-angle} |
...# Titles: Talk {slug}
**Selected angle**: Angle {X} ({name})
**Constraints**: {duration} min | {audience}
---
## Titles for the recommended angle
### Option 1 (recommended)
**{Main title}**
*Optional subtitle: {subtitle}*
Strengths: {why this title works}
Audience appeal: {who it hooks}
### Option 2
**{Title}**
Strengths: {strengths}
[Options 3-5]
---
## Titles for alternative angles (backup)
### If Angle 2 chosen
- **{title}**
- **{title}**
[If Angle 3 chosen: same structure]
---
## Verdict
**Recommendation**: Option 1 ("{title}")
**Why**: {short justification}# Descriptions: Talk {slug}
---
## Short description (abstract, ~100 words)
{Full text: direct, engaging, starts with the impact or concrete promise.
Not "In this talk, we will..."}
---
## Long description (CFP, ~250 words)
{Full text: context, what the audience will learn, who it's for.
Includes key metrics if available.
Direct and factual tone.}
---
## Speaker pitch (bio-ready, ~50 words)
{Speaker introduction in 1-2 sentences, their relationship to the topic}
---
## Tags / Keywords
{5-10 relevant tags for CFP or search}After generating and saving the 4 files, display:
---
CHECKPOINT: Angle + Title choice
I've generated 4 files:
- talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-angles.md -> {n} angles analyzed
- talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-titre.md -> {n} title options
- talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-descriptions.md
- talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-feedback-draft.md
Before starting the script (Stage 5), I need your choice:
1. Which angle do you choose? (recommended: Angle {X}, {name})
2. Which title do you prefer? (recommended: "{title}")
You can also modify, combine, or propose something different.
Reply to start the script.
---Do not invoke Stage 5 without explicit user confirmation.
feedback-draft.md to a peer before the checkpoint; 10 minutes of external feedback can save hours of rework on the scripttemplates/feedback-draft.md752edfe
If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.