AI critiques

Storymakers reviews of every deck.

Each deck reviewed by an AI editor through the Storymakers lens — narrative arc, opening hook, closing call-to-action, and action-title quality. With a one-line verdict, top strengths and weaknesses, and three concrete fixes per deck.

Narrative Opening Closing Title quality
1 34 226 236 161 186 118 111 13 0
1086 reviewed decks · mean 43.8 · click a bar to filter
suggests: move ✕ clear all

Search by prescribed fix

most common opening verb across 3405 suggestions
add 765 rewrite 729 replace 647 insert 374 move 146 collapse 137 promote 130 convert 89 expand 44 tighten 35 rename 35 compress 30 reframe 30 lead 28 either 24 cut 22 consolidate 22 restructure 20 de-duplicate 19 group 19 fix 16 sharpen 15 introduce 15 upgrade 14

Filtered reviewed decks

146 matching · page 7 / 7
20 closing
BCG · 2024 · 9p
Making WorkWorkBetter for Deskless Workers
“A well-titled diagnostic brief with a clean opening but no recommendation or MECE spine — use the action-title craft on pp.2/5/8 as a teaching example, not the overall structure.”
↓ No Resolution act: the deck ends on a diagnostic finding (p.8) plus a methodology page (p.9) with zero recommendations or next steps
8 closing
GoldmanSachs · 11p
gol 6
“This is a financial-product fact sheet with disclaimers, not a Storymakers consulting narrative — useful only as a counter-example of what happens when a document has no action titles, no arc, and no recommendation.”
↓ Action titles are entirely absent — every page header is a product code or firm name (p1-11), so the deck has no insight scaffolding