SkillcommunityGPT-5.6

Community Solar Pilot Investment Committee Deck

Create a six-slide, fully editable PowerPoint that helps an investment committee decide whether to fund detailed feasibility for an illustrative three-building solar pilot.

Remix
Reconstructed

How it was made

The publisher’s ingredients and steps. Unlisted details are unknown. Copy this text kit to your agent to adapt it.

Models

  • GPT-5.6 · OpenAI · execution · Codex

Agent

Codex

Pinned skills

References

Ordered steps

  1. Frame the decision

    Reconstructed workflow from the published prompt and available result artifacts; this is not a recorded sequence of agent turns. Use only the six-slide brief and supplied illustrative solar inputs. Derive the 5.8-year simple payback; leave unspecified assumptions as TBD.

  2. Build editable slides

    Use the pinned PowerPoint skill to implement the six ordered communication jobs with native text, shapes, diagrams, metrics, table and speaker notes.

  3. Review the deck

    Check arithmetic, units, consistency, clipping and editability against the prompt. The published slide images are visual references; they do not independently prove every object in the original deck is editable.

About

Create a six-slide, fully editable PowerPoint that helps an investment committee decide whether to fund detailed feasibility for an illustrative three-building solar pilot.

Original request

Create a polished, editable PowerPoint deck for an investment committee deciding whether to fund detailed feasibility for a fictional three-building community solar pilot.

Exact prompt

Hidden characters, if present, appear as Unicode escapes
Create a polished six-slide PowerPoint for an investment committee deciding whether to fund detailed feasibility for an illustrative community solar pilot across three municipal buildings. Deliver a native, fully editable `.pptx`, not flattened slide images.

Use only these supplied scenario inputs: SGD 1.8 million capital requirement, 1.25 GWh annual generation, SGD 310,000 annual operating savings, a 14-month implementation period, three unnamed municipal buildings, and the decision of whether to proceed to detailed feasibility. The approximate simple payback may be derived as SGD 1.8 million divided by SGD 310,000 per year, rounded to 5.8 years. Mark every other baseline, engineering, commercial, approval, financing, tax, degradation, residual-value, site, roof, tariff, load, procurement, and delivery input as TBD. Do not invent external research, evidence, facility names, approvals, or recommendations beyond the supplied decision.

Structure the deck as: 1) decision and scope; 2) the missing baseline evidence; 3) one programme with three separately assessable sites; 4) clearly labelled illustrative economics; 5) known inputs versus open questions; 6) a bounded recommendation to authorize detailed feasibility only. Give each slide one self-explanatory title and one communication job. Use neutral, precise language; no hype, storytelling headlines, filler subtitles, or generic title-and-bullet layouts. Put useful context and the source statement in speaker notes.

Use a restrained municipal and nature-informed visual system with dark olive, warm cream, muted ochre, and rust. Vary the slide silhouettes across cover, split-field comparison, native diagram, metric-led economics, editable table, and closing recommendation. Keep text, shapes, diagrams, metrics, and the table as native editable objects. Check arithmetic, labels, units, internal consistency, clipping, overlap, and editability before finishing.
Technical details and provenance
Provider
OpenAI
Model
GPT-5.6
Agent
Codex
Published
Publication
community