THESE PROCEDURES ARE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE STANDARDIZED METHODS UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS. AS CONDITIONS CHANGE, THE PROCEDURES WILL NEED TO BE ADJUSTED.
...
I couldn't resist the urge to comment on this...
I'm all for using checklists, but I'd encourage CFIs out there to think for a minute about what they're trying to accomplish with a maneuver, and how a maneuver checklist will further that goal.
Maneuvers are designed to increase a pilot's skill at physically flying the plane, as well as deepen their understanding of the physics involved in flying. I wonder how a detailed checklist will fit with that purpose.
Let me take slow flight as an example. When I teach slow flight, I break it down in to the most basic elements possible: slow down as much as you can, fly around a bit, then speed back up to cruise flight. On the checklist that Jhugz posted, slow flight is broken down into 13 very specific steps, which lead to one very specific maneuver. I'm not sure what they all are because I got kind of bored and my mind started to wander halfway through the maneuver.

Ok, maybe not quite that bad, but you get my point.
My concern is that a maneuver checklist can make something way more complicated than it needs to be, as well as become a crutch for a person who doesn't understand the dynamics of a maneuver. The PTS is incredibly broad in its definition of slow flight. It does not specify a speed or configuration, other than the minimum speed possible without stalling, and whatever configuration the examiner asks of the applicant. Nobody cares when the flaps are extended, or how much the power is reduced to, or how the applicant goes about recovering to cruise flight. All of those details can be made up on the fly (no pun intended).
When I'm teaching slow flight in the plane, we don't have a checklist. I start out by saying, "Let's stay at the same altitude and slow down. How do we do that?" Reduce the power.
"Ok, great, we're slowing down. Now, how can we make sure we're able to go as absolutely slow as possible?" Extend the flaps. If we're not in the white arc, I guess we have to reduce the power some more.
"Now, as we slow down, what's going to happen to drag on the plane? And how is that going to affect how much power we need from the engine?..."
"How do we know when we're close to stalling?" It's not an airspeed, it's AoA, and that's what the stall horn is there for...
And so on, through the entire maneuver, so that the pilot develops an understanding of how everything is affecting other things. I intentionally don't use numbers, because I want him to be feeling and anticipating the plane, listening for the stall horn, making minor tweaks all along, developing the skills to put the plane in to any position he wants, whenever he wants, without having to follow a strict series of events.
Then, when checkride time comes, the examiner can ask for anything and the pilot will handle it. Flaps up, gear down, within 10 knots of a stall, with a twenty degree bank? Ok, no problem. Flaps down, gear up, in a 30 degree bank? You got it. And those are perfectly reasonable requests within a PTS for a checkride.
So I'm not saying a maneuver checklist is a bad thing. It has its place, particularly when a person is brand new and doesn't have any knowledge base to go off of. Just be certain the pilot understands that the checklist simply details one way out of numerous ways to perform the same maneuver.