Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx agentmods add skills/qte77/claude-code-plugins/generating-slide-decknpx skills add qte77/claude-code-plugins --skill generating-slide-deckgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/qte77/claude-code-pluginsWhat it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5 | $0.00048 | $0.00869 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00024 | $0.00434 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00010 | $0.00174 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00087 |
Grade A, and why
generating-slide-deck scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured yesterday.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 127 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Generating Slide Deck (Phase 6)
Target: $ARGUMENTS
Phase 6 of the GTM pipeline. Depends on Phase 5. Generates a structured investor or stakeholder presentation from the synthesized GTM research.
Mode Awareness
Read config/mode.md before starting:
concise— 8-10 slides, one data point per slide, minimal textdetailed— 12-15 slides, supporting evidence slides, appendix sectionconservative— Data-led narrative, proof-before-vision structureambitious— Vision-first narrative, bold claims with supporting data, moonshot framing
Inputs
results/phase-5/synthesis.md— Integrated GTM narrative (primary source)config/comments_gtm.md— Audience type, deck length, format preferencesconfig/mode.md— Style and approach settings
Slide Structure
Adapt based on audience from config/comments_gtm.md:
Investor Deck (default)
- Title — Product name + one-liner
- Problem — Pain point with market evidence
- Solution — How the product solves it
- Market Size — TAM/SAM/SOM
- Product — Key capabilities and differentiators
- Traction / PMF Evidence — Signals and validation
- Competitive Landscape — Positioning map
- GTM Strategy — Channels, ICP, motion
- Team (placeholder if not available)
- Ask / Next Steps
Enterprise Buyer Deck
- Executive Summary
- Problem Statement
- Solution Overview
- Technical Fit
- Competitive Differentiation
- Implementation Path
- ROI / Business Case
- Next Steps
Internal Leadership Deck
- Opportunity Summary
- Market Analysis
- PMF Assessment
- Recommended GTM Path
- Resource Requirements
- Risks and Mitigations
- Decision Required
Workflow
- Read Phase 5 synthesis and
config/comments_gtm.mdfor audience preference - Select appropriate slide structure based on audience
- Write each slide with: headline (insight), 3-5 bullets, data citations
- Apply mode settings — concise vs detailed depth, conservative vs ambitious framing
- Add appendix slides for supporting data (detailed mode only)
- Validate against criteria — Check
config/validation_criteria.mdPhase 6 gates
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- yesterday First seen · 127 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A ab3bfe8e68ef
generating-slide-deck is a skill published in the GitHub repository qte77/claude-code-plugins (2 stars, last pushed 3d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 869 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
orchestrator
FULLY AUTONOMOUS Flutter development pipeline orchestrator. Smart routing: PM analyzes -> creates targeted tasks -> Orchestrator executes only needed agents. Supports Asana task URLs. Includes QE verification via Maestro E2E tests. 7-phase flow: PM -> TodoWrite -> Execute -> Review -> Tests -> QE E2E -> Close.
flutter-guide
Flutter/BLoC Clean Architecture patterns, review checklists, and testing guides. Background knowledge for flutter-dev, flutter-reviewer, flutter-tester. Not user-invocable.
maestro-flutter
Maestro E2E testing knowledge for Flutter apps. YAML-based flows, TestKeys, visual regression, Maestro MCP integration. Background knowledge for QE E2E testing phase.
android-kotlin-compose
Android development with Kotlin and Jetpack Compose. Use when user mentions "Compose", "Jetpack Compose", "Material3", "Hilt", "Room", "ViewModel", or needs to build Android UI, implement MVVM architecture, manage Compose state, or integrate Jetpack libraries (Navigation, Room, Hilt, ViewModel). Triggers on…
android-kotlin-coroutines
Android development with Kotlin Coroutines and Flow. Use when user mentions "coroutines", "suspend", "Flow", "StateFlow", "SharedFlow", "viewModelScope", "lifecycleScope", or needs to implement async programming, handle structured concurrency, integrate coroutines with Retrofit/Room/WorkManager, or write coroutine…
codex-advisor
Advisory consultation skill for architectural reviews, design decisions, code analysis, and technology evaluation. Codex provides recommendations without making code changes. Invoked by phrases like "consult Codex", "get Codex's opinion", "ask Codex about", "have Codex review", "Codex analysis", "validate this…