Bp polish

BP Polish

Improve an existing BP without silently changing its business facts. This skill can be used before deck production, after rendering, or in a correction loop.

Modes

Mode	Input	Focus
content	Outline / Markdown	Product definition, story, copy, page rhythm
evidence	Outline + ledger/sources	Claims, metrics, TAM/SAM/SOM, assumptions
visual	PPTX/PDF/slide images	Hierarchy, charts, layout, branding, QR codes
full	Any complete BP workspace	All dimensions + correction loop

Infer the smallest useful mode from the request. Do not require a PDF when the user only wants the outline reviewed.

Output Contract

business-plan/
├── reports/bp-review.md
├── outline.md                 # patched only when authorized by the request
├── deck-manifest.md           # updated for visual fixes
└── revised slide/deck assets  # only affected artifacts

Workflow (MANDATORY)

Step 0: Resolve source and mode

Resolve this SKILL.md directory as SKILL_DIR. Inspect the supplied source and any existing BP workspace. Reuse audience, stage, style, and evidence definitions.

If multiple review modes are plausible, prefill from the user's wording. Ask one compact question only when the choice materially changes the work. “不专业” defaults to full; “文字太技术” defaults to content; “图表不好看” defaults to visual.

Read references/review-rubric.md, references/charts-and-visuals.md, and references/user-config.md as relevant.

Step 1: Run deterministic outline audit

When an outline exists:

python3 "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/audit_bp.py" \
  --input ./business-plan/outline.md \
  --output ./business-plan/reports/bp-review.md

Use --strict before final delivery. The script checks structure and evidence hygiene; it does not replace investor judgment or visual inspection.

Step 2: Review as four adversaries

1. Non-technical investor — can the product be repeated after ten seconds?
2. Category expert — which product/competition claims are naive or imprecise?
3. Skeptical partner — which core claims lack proof or overstate traction?
4. Design director — where does layout reduce trust or distort meaning?

For every issue record slide, severity, why it matters, and exact revision.

Step 3: Protect facts during polishing

• Never make numbers “look better”.
• Never turn an assumption into a fact.
• Never invent a customer quote or testimonial.
• Never widen TAM without a buyer and price bridge.
• Never change a product boundary solely to improve the story.

If a revision needs new evidence, mark an evidence blocker and return it to lovstudio-bp-outline.

Step 4: Inspect rendered slides

For visual/full mode, create or inspect a contact sheet and every page at normal presentation size. Check:

• one conclusion per page;
• body text at least 20 pt;
• optical alignment and whitespace;
• chart axes, units, legends, dates, and sources;
• genuine, legible product screenshots;
• unstretched images and logos;
• no clipped text or broken CJK;
• QR codes decoded from final rendered pages;
• clean cover and one-action final page;
• matching PPTX/PDF page counts and normalized filenames.

Step 5: Apply targeted fixes

Classify each fix:

• copy fix — patch outline and regenerate affected slides;
• evidence blocker — update ledger/source before rewriting;
• visual defect — change layout/style or regenerate affected slides only.

Do not regenerate the whole deck for a one-page issue. Repeat audit → fix → audit for at most three cycles.

Step 6: Deliver the report

Lead with verdict and score, then blockers, page-level findings, evidence gaps, visual QA, and delivery status. Use assets/templates/bp-review.md.

Target: 85+ with no blocker. A high numeric score never overrides fabricated data, missing financing ask, broken source, unreadable slide, or invalid QR code.