Integral Definition of Exterior Derivative?

Let $\omega$ be a differential $k$-form.

$$d\omega(v_1,v_2,...v_k,v_{k+1}) = \lim_{t_j \to 0}\dfrac{1}{t_1t_2 \dots t_{k+1}}\int_{bP_t} \omega$$

where $P_t$ is the parallelpiped formed by $t_1v_1,t_2v_2, \dots, t_{k+1}v_{k+1}$, and $bP_t$ is the oriented boundary of this parallelepiped.

Observe that this definition even applies to $0$-forms:

$$df(v)\big|_p = \lim_{t \to 0}\dfrac{1}{t} \left( f(p+tv) - f(p)\right)$$

since the boundary of a line segment is just two points oriented in opposite directions, and integration on a point is just evaluation.

This definition, which can be established as soon as you define integration of a form, is essentially an "infinitesmal" version of Stoke's theorem. Stoke's theorem seems a lot less mysterious when this is you definition of the exterior derivative! Although I cannot see your "one line proof" on google books, I am guessing it is basically this? It really is just summing up lots of little local oriented parallelepipeds, and observing that (due to orientations) the interior faces cancel out. That together with the fact that the result holds for incredibly small parallelepipeds by the definition above gives the result.

It also is very clear from this perspective why $d\circ d = 0$: if you already have Stoke's theorem, you can see that $dd\omega$ is defined by an integral which vanishes for all $t$ (applying stoke's theorem to the integral gives an integral over the boundary of the boundary of a parallelepiped, which is empty).

What is perhaps less clear from this definition is why $d\omega$ is a form. It is clearly alternating, by the definition of integration over an oriented boundary. It respects scalar multiplication in each slot just by variable substitution of the limiting variables. The hard part is seeing why it respects vector addition in each slot. I leave that as a fun exercise.