Podcast Quality Scorecard

• EPISODE_SLUG_transcript.json (Whisper output, extract text field)
• transcript.txt (plain text)

Optional but valuable: 5. research/p3-briefing.md - Research organization 6. sources.md - Source validation 7. logs/metadata.md - Publishing metadata (if exists)

Audio duration:

• Extract from chapters JSON (last chapter startTime + estimated final chapter duration ~120s)
• OR use ffmpeg -i EPISODE.mp3 2>&1 | grep Duration

Phase 2: Evaluate 10 Dimensions

For each dimension, provide:

1. Score (1-5) using the rating scale
2. Evidence from episode materials (quotes, examples, observations)
3. Why this score (not higher/lower)
4. Specific observations unique to this episode

Dimension 1: Structural Clarity (1-5)

What we're measuring: Can a listener follow the episode's structure and know where they are at any moment?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Crystal Clear: Structure stated upfront, clear signposting at transitions, easy to summarize arc in one sentence
• 4 - Well Structured: Most transitions are clear, structure is followable, minor gaps
• 3 - Adequate: Structure exists but requires listener effort to discern, some unclear transitions
• 2 - Meandering: Structure is hard to follow, transitions feel random, listener may get lost
• 1 - Chaotic: No discernible structure, topics jump without warning

Evidence to gather:

• Does opening preview structure?
• Count signposting phrases: "we just covered X, now we're moving to Y"
• Can you write one-sentence arc summary?
• Compare actual episode flow (chapters) to planned structure (content_plan.md)

Document:

• One-sentence arc summary
• Examples of signposting (or lack thereof)
• Structural preview (if present)

Dimension 2: Depth Distribution (1-5)

What we're measuring: Do all major themes get proportional depth, or do some feel rushed/underdeveloped?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Perfectly Balanced: All major themes get depth proportional to importance, no theme feels rushed or over-explored
• 4 - Well Balanced: Minor depth variations, but all themes adequately covered
• 3 - Uneven: One theme clearly gets more depth than equally important themes
• 2 - Imbalanced: Important theme feels like an add-on or afterthought, significant depth disparity
• 1 - Severely Skewed: Major theme mentioned briefly while minor themes dominate

Evidence to gather:

• List all major themes from content_plan.md
• Calculate time allocation per theme (from chapters)
• Identify themes that got <15% of time when they deserved more
• Note if depth differences are intentional (primary vs. secondary) or accidental

Document:

• Theme analysis table with time allocations and percentages
• Critical imbalances identified
• Comparison to content plan intentions

Dimension 3: Mode-Switching Clarity (1-5)

What we're measuring: Are transitions between modes (philosophy, research, storytelling, practical, landing) intentional and smooth?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Masterful: Modes are clearly defined, transitions feel purposeful, each mode serves its function
• 4 - Intentional: Modes are distinguishable, transitions mostly smooth, occasional blend
• 3 - Blended: Modes blend together, transitions not always clear, listener may not notice mode shifts
• 2 - Muddy: Modes blur together confusingly (philosophy mixed with practical advice, research mixed with opinion)
• 1 - Undefined: No clear modes, everything feels like one continuous stream

Evidence to gather:

• Identify distinct philosophical, research, storytelling, practical, and landing moments
• Count explicit mode transitions ("Let's look at what the research found...")
• Note where modes blend without markers
• Compare to content_plan.md mode intentions

Document:

• Modes observed (yes/no for each, with quality rating)
• Examples of clear vs. unclear transitions
• The blend problem (if exists)

Dimension 4: Dialogue Dynamics (1-5)

What we're measuring: Does the conversation feel like a genuine exchange with counterpoint, or just mutual agreement and reinforcement?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Dynamic Exchange: Multiple counterpoint moments, respectful disagreement, "wait, but..." challenges, diverse perspectives
• 4 - Engaging: Some counterpoint, occasional push-back, mostly collaborative with texture
• 3 - Supportive Riff: Mostly agreement, speakers build on each other, limited divergence
• 2 - Echo Chamber: Pure reinforcement, no push-back, feels like presentation with two voices
• 1 - Monotone: Could be one person talking, no meaningful interaction

Evidence to gather:

• Count counterpoint moments (one speaker challenges or diverges)
• Look for "wait, but what about..." or "I see it differently because..." phrases
• Identify agreement patterns: "Exactly," "Absolutely," "Precisely," "Correct"
• Note missed opportunities for debate (controversial topics presented without tension)

Document:

• Counterpoint moments counted (with examples)
• Pattern analysis (call-and-response, pure agreement, etc.)
• Missing opportunities for counterpoint

Dimension 5: Practical Actionability (1-5)

What we're measuring: Does the listener leave with clear, specific, actionable steps?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Highly Actionable: 3+ specific tactics, frameworks, or steps a listener can implement immediately
• 4 - Actionable: 2 specific tactics, clear enough to act on with minimal additional research
• 3 - Moderately Actionable: 1 specific tactic, or general advice that needs clarification
• 2 - Vaguely Actionable: Concepts discussed but no clear "how to do this" guidance
• 1 - Purely Conceptual: Interesting ideas but zero implementation guidance

Evidence to gather:

• Extract all specific tactics, frameworks, steps mentioned
• Check for timeframes (not "over time" but "9-12 weeks")
• Check for thresholds (not "small decisions" but "under $5,000")
• Assess: Could a listener implement these tomorrow?

Document:

• List of actionable takeaways (numbered, with specificity details)
• Assessment of implementation readiness

Dimension 6: Takeaway Clarity (1-5)

What we're measuring: Can a listener articulate 1-3 core takeaways from the episode?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Crystal Clear: 1-3 core takeaways explicitly stated, memorable, listener could repeat them
• 4 - Clear: Takeaways are identifiable with minimal effort, mostly explicit
• 3 - Inferrable: Listener needs to synthesize or infer takeaways, not explicitly stated
• 2 - Fuzzy: Hard to identify core takeaways, too many ideas competing for attention
• 1 - Unclear: No clear takeaways, episode explores but doesn't land on key points

Evidence to gather:

• Check closing section for explicit takeaway synthesis
• Count core points (are there 1-3, or 10+?)
• Test: Could you answer "what was this episode about?" in 1-2 sentences?
• Look for callback to opening hook

Document:

• Core takeaways (1-3 numbered points)
• Whether explicitly stated or inferred
• Quality of closing synthesis

Dimension 7: Storytelling Quality (1-5)

What we're measuring: Are examples, case studies, and narratives used effectively to illustrate concepts?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Compelling: Multiple memorable stories, well-integrated, emotionally resonant, illustrate key points perfectly
• 4 - Effective: 2+ stories, good integration, serve to illustrate concepts
• 3 - Adequate: 1 story, or multiple stories that are functional but not memorable
• 2 - Minimal: Stories feel tacked on or tangential, limited illustrative power
• 1 - Absent: No stories, pure abstract discussion

Evidence to gather:

• Count stories, examples, case studies
• Assess memorability (would a listener remember this story?)
• Check integration (do stories illustrate key concepts or feel tangential?)
• Note emotional resonance

Document:

• Stories/examples identified (numbered list with effectiveness ratings)
• Assessment of integration quality

Dimension 8: Episode Arc & Resolution (1-5)

What we're measuring: Does the episode build toward a satisfying resolution, or does it trail off?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Satisfying Arc: Clear problem → exploration → resolution, builds momentum, strong ending that lands the point
• 4 - Good Arc: Identifiable build and resolution, ending feels intentional
• 3 - Adequate Arc: Some build-up, ending is present but doesn't fully land
• 2 - Weak Arc: Little build-up, ending feels like it trails off or runs out of steam
• 1 - No Arc: Flat throughout, no sense of build or resolution

Evidence to gather:

• Identify: opening hook → problem definition → exploration → resolution
• Check if episode builds or meanders at consistent intensity
• Assess closing: conclusion or "ran out of time"?
• Look for callback to opening

Document:

• Arc structure (opening, problem, exploration, resolution)
• Assessment of momentum and build
• Quality of resolution

Dimension 9: Packaging & Discoverability (1-5)

What we're measuring: Are episode metadata, descriptions, and resources useful for listeners?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Excellent Packaging: Rich description with "What You'll Learn", timestamps, validated sources, clear CTA, useful show notes
• 4 - Strong Packaging: Description is informative, sources provided, show notes functional
• 3 - Adequate Packaging: Basic description, some sources, minimal show notes
• 2 - Weak Packaging: Generic description, few/no sources, poor show notes
• 1 - Minimal Packaging: Title and basic description only

Evidence to gather:

• Read logs/metadata.md (if exists)
• Check for "What You'll Learn" bullets
• Check for key timestamps
• Assess source descriptions (just URLs vs. actionable descriptions)
• Check for CTA (call-to-action)

Document:

• Current state (present vs. missing elements)
• Assessment of discoverability

Dimension 10: Companion Resource Value (1-5)

What we're measuring: Do companion resources (summary, checklist, diagrams) add value beyond the audio?

Rating Scale:

• 5 - Highly Valuable: Multiple resources (summary, checklist, framework diagram), professionally formatted, immediately useful
• 4 - Valuable: 1-2 resources, clear utility, good formatting
• 3 - Moderately Valuable: Resources exist but basic, limited additional value beyond audio
• 2 - Low Value: Resources feel auto-generated, not tailored, minimal utility
• 1 - Absent: No companion resources

Evidence to gather:

• Check for: one-page summary, action checklist, framework diagrams, decision trees, landing page
• Assess utility: would a listener use these, or just "nice to have"?
• Check formatting quality

Document:

• Resources present (checklist)
• Assessment of value and utility

Phase 3: Generate Summary

Create summary section with:

Scores Table:

Total: XX / 50 (XX%)

Strengths (scores 4-5):

• List 3-5 top strengths with specific examples

Weaknesses (scores 1-2):

• List 1-3 critical weaknesses with specific examples

Areas for Improvement (score 3):

• List 2-3 moderate improvements needed

Workflow Improvements to Apply for Next Episode:

• Prioritize 3-5 high-impact improvements for next episode

Phase 4: Write Output File

Create podcast/episodes/EPISODE_PATH/logs/quality_scorecard.md with:

1. Header (episode title, date, evaluator, format, duration)
2. Scores table (summary)
3. Full 10-dimension evaluation (each dimension gets its own section with rating scale, evidence, assessment)
4. Summary (strengths, weaknesses, areas for improvement)
5. Workflow improvements (specific tasks from improvement plan)
6. Notes & observations (free-form insights, what worked, what needs work, ideas for next episode)

Quality Standards

Evidence-Based Evaluation

• Quote from transcript to support claims about dialogue, signposting, etc.
• Reference specific chapters when discussing structure or depth
• Compare to content plan to assess execution vs. intention
• Avoid vague assessments ("felt rushed") without evidence ("AI section: 90 seconds of 32-minute episode, 2.8% of total time")

Actionable Feedback

• Not: "Dialogue needs improvement"

• Instead: "Zero counterpoint moments. Founder Mode debate (Ch 9) presented perfect opportunity: one speaker could defend delegation, other defend hands-on involvement. Instead, both agreed throughout."

• Not: "Packaging could be better"

• Instead: "Missing 'What You'll Learn' bullets. Current description doesn't entice. Add: 'Why the famous 70% rule has zero research backing' + 4 more bullets highlighting key frameworks."

Respectful Tone

This is diagnostic feedback for improvement, not criticism. Focus on:

• Opportunities (not "failures")
• Specific improvements (not vague "be better")
• Strengths to leverage (not just weaknesses)

Example Usage

Invocation via Task Tool

Use the Task tool with subagent_type='general-purpose':

"Run the podcast-quality-scorecard skill on the episode at podcast/episodes/algorithms-for-life/ep3-how-to-delegate/.

Follow the workflow in .claude/skills/podcast-quality-scorecard/SKILL.md to:
1. Gather episode materials (content_plan.md, report.md, transcript, chapters)
2. Evaluate all 10 dimensions with evidence-based scoring
3. Generate summary with strengths, weaknesses, and workflow improvement recommendations
4. Write comprehensive scorecard to logs/quality_scorecard.md

Episode title: Algorithms for Life: Ep. 3, How to Delegate
Format: Standard workflow (baseline evaluation)"

Output Location

podcast/episodes/EPISODE_PATH/logs/quality_scorecard.md

Notes

• Not a before/after comparison - Each episode gets its own diagnostic profile
• Apply to every episode - Baseline, improved, and experimental formats all get scored
• Aggregate over time - After 5-10 episodes, identify patterns (consistent strengths, persistent weaknesses)
• Reference quality framework - Quality Waves 1-5 are documented in CLAUDE.md