Talk Stage 4: Position + CHECKPOINT

Generates strategic angles, titles, descriptions, and a peer-feedback draft. Then stops and waits for your angle + title choice before Stage 5 can proceed.

When to Use This Skill

• After Stage 3 (Concepts) — needs the concept catalogue

• When deciding how to frame the talk

• Before sending the CFP (uses the generated descriptions directly)

What This Skill Does

• Reads inputs — summary + concepts + event constraints

• Generates angles — 3-4 distinct angles with force/weakness analysis

• Recommends — one clear choice with structured justification

• Generates titles — 3-5 options per angle

• Generates descriptions — short abstract + long CFP description

• Generates feedback draft — ready-to-send message (3 formats)

• CHECKPOINT — displays choice request and waits for user response

• Saves 4 files

Input

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-summary.md (required)

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-concepts.md (required)

• Event constraints: duration, audience, CFP format if applicable

Output

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-angles.md

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-titre.md

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-descriptions.md

• talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-feedback-draft.md

angles.md Format

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)

[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

titre.md Format

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]

Verdict

Recommendation: Option 1 — "{title}" Why: {short justification}

descriptions.md Format

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}

CHECKPOINT (mandatory — Step 7)

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.

Angle Generation Rules

• Minimum 3 angles, maximum 4 (beyond that it's noise)

• Each angle must be genuinely distinct (not variations of the same)

• The recommendation must be clear and argued — not "your choice"

• Always test: "can this angle sustain the full duration without repeating?"

Anti-patterns

• Click-bait titles ("What nobody tells you about AI")

• Recommending the last angle listed by default (recency bias)

• Descriptions that read like slide summaries

• Skipping the CHECKPOINT — it's the pipeline's most important control point

• Marketing language in descriptions (revolutionary, game-changer)

Validation Checklist

• 3-4 angles with force/weakness/audience-fit analysis

• Clear recommendation with structured justification

• 3-5 titles for the recommended angle

• Short description (~100 words) and long description (~250 words)

• Feedback draft generated from template

• CHECKPOINT displayed clearly

• 4 files saved

Tips

• Send feedback-draft.md to a peer before the checkpoint — 10 minutes of external feedback can save hours of rework on the script

• The recommendation is a starting point, not an order — your audience knowledge overrides any algorithmic suggestion

• Weak titles are usually too abstract: test each title by asking "would someone in the hallway stop walking to read this?"

Templates

• Peer feedback formats: templates/feedback-draft.md

Related

• Stage 3: Concepts — prerequisite

• Stage 5: Script — starts after this CHECKPOINT

• Orchestrator