Talk Stage 4: Position + CHECKPOINT

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

| 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 wo

<!-- truncated -->