---
description: "Evaluate video scripts and presentations for flatness, tension, and emotional impact. Use when: 'is this script good', 'review script', 'evaluate video', 'why is this boring', 'flatness check', 'script review', 'improve script', 'rate this video'. Scores 6 dimensions (tension, specificity, emotional arc, hook, customer voice, visual variety), identifies specific problems, and suggests concrete fixes with examples."
---

# Script Evaluator / Flatness Detector

Review a video script, presentation, or rendered scene code and identify exactly WHY it's boring and HOW to fix it. Works on scripts, storyboards, and Remotion/code-based video scenes.

## Evaluation: 6 Dimensions (score each 1-10)

### 1. TENSION - Does the viewer feel something?

| Score | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | No enemy/problem. Features listed without context. "We do X, Y, Z" tone |
| 4-6 | Problem mentioned but vague ("saves time"). Some contrast but generic |
| 7-10 | Specific visceral enemy. Clear before→after. Viewer thinks "that's me!" |

**Fix:** Name the specific pain. Use customer language. Show the "before" state - make it ugly. Add a number to every claim.

### 2. SPECIFICITY - Is it concrete or vague?

| Red Flag | Fix |
|----------|-----|
| "Saves time" | HOW MUCH? "Saves 45 minutes per photo" |
| "Better quality" | WHAT metric? "Original DPI, pixel-to-pixel" |
| "Innovative solution" | WHAT innovation? "Neural retouching with layer output" |
| "AI-powered" | What does the AI DO? "Detects and removes 12 types of artifacts" |
| "Trusted by thousands" | WHO? "Used by 500+ jewelry studios including [name]" |

**Rule:** Replace every adjective with a number or example.

### 3. EMOTIONAL ARC - Does it go somewhere?

| Score | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | Same energy start to finish. Feels like a slideshow of facts |
| 4-6 | Some variation but no clear peak/valley |
| 7-10 | Identifiable beats. At least one DOWN (tension) and one UP (relief). Last scene feels different from first |

**Fix:** Map scenes to an emotional curve. Must have at least one DOWN (problem) and one UP (amazement/relief). The CTA should feel like resolution, not another slide.

### 4. HOOK STRENGTH - Will they keep watching?

| Score | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | Starts with logo, "We are [company]...", or decorative intro with no information |
| 4-6 | Has information but doesn't create urgency or curiosity |
| 7-10 | First frame has surprising information. Creates curiosity gap. Uses customer language. MUST see next scene |

**Fix:** The hook is your ad for your ad. Read the first 3 seconds aloud. If it sounds like a corporate intro, rewrite. Try: stat, question, bold claim, customer quote, visual shock.

### 5. CUSTOMER VOICE - Does it sound human?

| Score | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | "Leveraging cutting-edge technology." "Seamless integration." "World-class results." |
| 4-6 | Reasonable language but still "written by marketing" feeling |
| 7-10 | Actual customer phrases. Sounds like describing to a friend. Simple, direct, concrete |

**Fix:** Find 3 customer reviews. Copy their EXACT words. Replace marketing copy with their language.

### 6. VISUAL VARIETY - Is it visually dynamic?

| Score | Description |
|-------|-------------|
| 1-3 | Same layout every scene. All text, no imagery. Same animation everywhere |
| 4-6 | Some variation but key moment doesn't stand out visually |
| 7-10 | 2+ visual styles. Pacing matches emotion. Most important scene looks DIFFERENT |

**Fix:** Alternate scene types. After text-heavy scenes, do a visual scene. The most important scene should have a unique visual treatment.

## Scoring

```
TENSION:        _/10
SPECIFICITY:    _/10
EMOTIONAL ARC:  _/10
HOOK:           _/10
CUSTOMER VOICE: _/10
VISUAL VARIETY: _/10
────────────────────
TOTAL:          _/60

VERDICT:
  50-60: Ship it
  40-49: Good, minor tweaks needed  
  30-39: Needs work on weakest dimensions
  20-29: Major rewrite - go back to Product Brief
  <20:   Start over with Product Meaning Extractor
```

## 5 Common Flatness Patterns

### 1. "Feature Parade"
**Symptom:** Scene 1: Feature A. Scene 2: Feature B. Scene 3: Feature C. CTA.
**Why flat:** No narrative tension. It's a list, not a story.
**Fix:** Add a problem scene BEFORE features. Features answer a question - ask the question first.

### 2. "Logo-First"
**Symptom:** Opens with 3-5 seconds of logo animation.
**Why flat:** Nobody cares about your logo yet. They care about their problem.
**Fix:** Move logo to the END. Open with the hook.

### 3. "Generic Superlatives"
**Symptom:** "The best solution." "Revolutionary technology." "World-class results."
**Why flat:** Every product says this. These words carry zero information.
**Fix:** Replace with specifics. "4x faster" beats "Revolutionary speed" every time.

### 4. "Missing Middle"
**Symptom:** Good hook, good CTA, flat middle that walks through features.
**Why flat:** No emotional peak. The demo section needs a WOW moment.
**Fix:** Find the single most impressive thing the product does. Build to it. Make it visually different from everything else.

### 5. "Uniform Energy"
**Symptom:** Every scene has same pacing, animation speed, text size.
**Why flat:** No rhythm. Like music at one volume.
**Fix:** Vary tempo: fast cuts → slow hero shot → medium features → fast proof → slow CTA.

## Usage

After writing a script or coding scenes:
```
"Evaluate this script/video using the script-evaluator skill.
Score each dimension 1-10 and give specific fixes for anything below 7."
```

Also useful for comparing versions:
```
"Evaluate V1 and V2 side by side. Which is stronger and why?"
```

## Gotchas

- A high total with one dimension at 2 = video still feels broken. Fix the weakest link first.
- Tension is #1 predictor of engagement. Always fix this first.
- Don't over-optimize "interesting" at expense of clarity. Confusing > flat, but clear + engaging > both.
- This evaluator works on: scripts, storyboards, Remotion TSX code, and even finished videos (describe what you see).
