Using Claude to attack your own presentation's logic before showing it
Before presenting anything, the raw of a deck gets pasted into Claude with instructions to argue against it rather than polish it. The core instruction is: don't fix the writing, don't make it nicer — find the spot where a skeptical person in the room would stop trusting the argument. The used most often is roughly: "you're the most skeptical person in this meeting, read this , tell me where the argument has a gap, where something is assumed without proof, and what gets pushed back on first." This regularly catches slides where a claim jumps straight to a conclusion with no supporting steps in between — something hard to notice when too close to the material.
In one case, it flagged that a "results" section had no to compare against. This doesn't replace ly knowing the material, but it s the awkward question at the desk instead of live in the meeting.
Key points
- Paste the raw deck into Claude and ask it to argue against it, not improve the wording
- Core : act as the most skeptical person in the room, find gaps and unproven
- Real example: it flagged a "results" section missing a for comparison
- Useful for catching claim-to-conclusion jumps that are hard to see when too close to the work
- Doesn't replace ly knowing the material, but front-loads awkward questions before the live meeting