Talk Stage4 Position

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), which provides the concept catalogue
• When deciding how to frame the talk
• Before sending the CFP (uses the generated descriptions directly)

What this skill does

1. Reads inputs: summary + concepts + event constraints
2. Generates angles: 3-4 distinct angles with strength/weakness analysis
3. Recommends: one clear choice with structured justification
4. Generates titles: 3-5 options per angle
5. Generates descriptions: short abstract + long CFP description
6. Generates feedback draft: ready-to-send message (3 formats)
7. CHECKPOINT: displays choice request and waits for user response
8. 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

markdownCopy code
# 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} |
...

titre.md Format

markdownCopy code
# 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.md Format

markdownCopy code
# 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:

Copy code
---
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, etc.)

Validation checklist

• 3-4 angles with strength/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