Claude-code-ultimate-guide talk-stage4-position
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.
install
source · Clone the upstream repo
git clone https://github.com/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-ultimate-guide
Claude Code · Install into ~/.claude/skills/
T=$(mktemp -d) && git clone --depth=1 https://github.com/FlorianBruniaux/claude-code-ultimate-guide "$T" && mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && cp -r "$T/examples/skills/talk-pipeline/stage-4-position" ~/.claude/skills/florianbruniaux-claude-code-ultimate-guide-talk-stage4-position && rm -rf "$T"
manifest:
examples/skills/talk-pipeline/stage-4-position/SKILL.mdsource content
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
(required)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-summary.md
(required)talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-concepts.md- Event constraints: duration, audience, CFP format if applicable
Output
talks/{YYYY}-{slug}-angles.mdtalks/{YYYY}-{slug}-titre.mdtalks/{YYYY}-{slug}-descriptions.mdtalks/{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 | Act | Duration | Main angle | Integrated sub-angle | |-----|----------|-----------|---------------------| | 1. {name} | {n} min | {main angle} | {sub-angle} | ...
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
to a peer before the checkpoint — 10 minutes of external feedback can save hours of rework on the scriptfeedback-draft.md - 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