summarize-meeting

name	summarize-meeting
description	Structured meeting summarization that captures decisions, action items, and open questions in a consistent format.
license	MIT + Commons Clause
metadata	{"version":"1.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"project-management","domain":"pm-execution","updated":"2026-03-04T00:00:00.000Z","tech-stack":"meeting-facilitation, action-tracking, decision-logging"}

Meeting Summary Expert

Overview

Transform meeting notes, transcripts, or recordings into clear, actionable summaries. Every summary follows a consistent structure that makes it easy for attendees and non-attendees alike to understand what was discussed, what was decided, and who is doing what by when.

When to Use

• After any meeting where decisions were made or actions were assigned.
• Sprint ceremonies -- planning, retro, backlog refinement, sprint review.
• Stakeholder meetings -- steering committees, executive reviews, client calls.
• Ad-hoc discussions -- when an impromptu conversation produces commitments that need tracking.

Methodology

Step 1: Capture Meeting Metadata

Record the essential context:

Field	Description
Date	Meeting date (YYYY-MM-DD)
Time	Start and end time with timezone
Participants	Names and roles (e.g., "Sarah Chen, Product Lead")
Topic	One-line meeting purpose
Location	Room name, video link, or "async"

Step 2: Extract Key Discussion Points

From the raw notes or transcript, identify the substantive topics discussed. Guidelines:

• Summarize, do not transcribe. Capture the essence of each topic in 1-3 bullet points.
• Use plain language. Avoid jargon. Anyone reading the summary should understand the points without having attended.
• Focus on what matters. Skip small talk, repeated points, and tangential discussions.
• Note disagreements. If there was significant debate, capture the key positions and how they were resolved (or not).

Step 3: Extract Action Items

Every action item must answer three questions:

1. Who is responsible? (Single owner, not a team)
2. What specifically must they do? (Concrete, observable deliverable)
3. By when? (Specific date, not "soon" or "next sprint")

Format as a table:

Due Date	Owner	Action
2026-03-10	Sarah Chen	Share revised wireframes with the design team
2026-03-07	James Park	Schedule load test for the staging environment

Action item quality checks:

• Each action has exactly one owner (not "Sarah and James")
• The deliverable is specific enough to verify completion
• The due date is a calendar date, not a relative timeframe
• Actions use active verbs: "share," "schedule," "draft," "review," "decide"

Step 4: Record Decisions

List each decision made during the meeting as a numbered item. Include enough context that someone who was not present understands the decision and its rationale.

Format:

1. [Decision] -- [Brief rationale or context]. Decided by [who].
2. [Decision] -- [Brief rationale or context]. Decided by [who].

Examples:

1. Launch date set for April 15 -- Allows two full sprints for QA after feature freeze on March 28. Decided by steering committee.
2. Use PostgreSQL instead of MongoDB for the analytics service -- Team consensus based on query pattern analysis showing 80% relational queries. Decided by engineering leads.

Step 5: Capture Open Questions

List unresolved questions that need follow-up. For each question, note who is expected to provide an answer and by when, if known.

1. Do we need a separate staging environment for the new analytics service? (James to investigate by March 10)
2. What is the budget ceiling for the Q2 marketing campaign? (Pending finance review)

Step 6: Save and Distribute

File naming convention: Meeting-Summary-[YYYY-MM-DD]-[topic-slug].md

Examples:

• Meeting-Summary-2026-03-04-sprint-planning.md
• Meeting-Summary-2026-03-04-q2-roadmap-review.md

Distribution:

• Share the summary within 24 hours of the meeting.
• Send to all participants and relevant stakeholders who were not present.
• Store in the team's shared documentation space (Confluence, Notion, shared drive).

Output Template

# Meeting Summary

## Metadata

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Date** | [YYYY-MM-DD] |
| **Time** | [HH:MM] - [HH:MM] [TZ] |
| **Participants** | [Name, Role]; [Name, Role]; ... |
| **Topic** | [One-line meeting purpose] |

## Summary

- [Key discussion point 1]
- [Key discussion point 2]
- [Key discussion point 3]

## Action Items

| Due Date | Owner | Action |
|----------|-------|--------|
| [YYYY-MM-DD] | [Name] | [Specific, verifiable action] |

## Decisions Made

1. **[Decision]** -- [Rationale]. Decided by [who].

## Open Questions

1. [Question]? ([Who is expected to answer, by when])

What to Focus On

When summarizing, prioritize:

• Decisions that affect roadmap or strategy -- These have the broadest impact and are most likely to be referenced later.
• Who does what by when -- Accountability is the primary value of a meeting summary.
• Blockers and risks surfaced -- These need visibility beyond the meeting room.
• Changes to previously agreed plans -- These create confusion if not documented.

When summarizing, deprioritize:

• Status updates that are available elsewhere (Jira, dashboards)
• Repetition of information already documented
• Social conversation and small talk
• Detailed technical discussions better captured in design docs

Integration with Other Skills

• Feed decisions into wwas/ to create backlog items with strategic context.
• Use action items to create tickets via ../jira-expert/.
• Document recurring meeting outcomes in ../confluence-expert/ templates.

References

• See references/meeting-facilitation-guide.md for meeting types, note-taking strategies, and anti-patterns.
• See assets/meeting_summary_template.md for ready-to-use templates.

Troubleshooting

Problem	Likely Cause	Resolution
Action items are assigned to teams instead of individuals	Culture avoids individual accountability; facilitator does not press for a single owner	Enforce the "one owner" rule during the meeting; if a team is named, ask "Who on that team is the single point of contact?"
Summaries are too long and nobody reads them	Summarizer includes too much detail; tries to capture everything	Apply the "would someone who missed the meeting need this?" filter to every bullet point; target 1 page maximum for 1-hour meetings
Decisions are not documented, leading to re-litigation in future meetings	Meeting moved quickly; facilitator focused on discussion, not decisions	Pause after each decision and state it aloud: "Let me confirm: we decided X because Y"; add decision capture as a facilitator checklist item
Action items have vague due dates ("soon", "next sprint")	Facilitator does not push for specificity; team uncomfortable committing to dates	Require a calendar date for every action; if the team cannot commit, set a date to decide the date
Summaries are distributed days after the meeting	Summarizer is overburdened or perfectionist	Set a 24-hour distribution rule; use a structured template to reduce writing effort; assign summary responsibility before the meeting
Open questions from previous meetings are never resolved	No follow-up mechanism; questions captured but not tracked	Add "Previous Open Questions" as a standing agenda item; assign each question an owner and a resolution date
Attendees disagree with the summary after distribution	Summary reflects summarizer's interpretation, not group consensus	Share key decisions and action items verbally at the meeting close; invite corrections within 24 hours of distribution

Success Criteria

• 100% of meetings with decisions or action items produce a written summary within 24 hours
• Every action item has a single named owner and a specific calendar due date
• Action item completion rate exceeds 80% by the stated due date
• Summaries are 1 page or less for meetings under 1 hour
• Decisions are documented with enough context that a non-attendee can understand the rationale
• Open questions from previous meetings are tracked and resolved within 2 meeting cycles
• Meeting summary satisfaction (from periodic team survey) averages 4+/5

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: Capturing meeting metadata, extracting key discussion points, documenting decisions with rationale, recording action items with owners and due dates, capturing open questions, distributing summaries, maintaining consistent naming conventions and storage.

Out of Scope: Meeting facilitation and agenda design, real-time transcription (use a transcription tool as input), project status tracking (hand off to ../jira-expert/), strategic decision frameworks (hand off to ../senior-pm/), recording or video management.

Limitations: Summary quality is bounded by the quality of input notes or transcript. Automated transcription tools may introduce errors that the summarizer must catch. The skill does not replace the need for a skilled facilitator -- poorly run meetings produce poor summaries regardless of template quality. Sensitive or confidential meetings may require restricted distribution that the standard workflow does not address.

Integration Points

Integration	Direction	What Flows
wwas/	Meetings -> WWAS	Decisions and commitments from meetings become WWAS backlog items
job-stories/	Meetings -> Stories	Discovery discussions surface situations and motivations for job stories
../jira-expert/	Meetings -> Jira	Action items create Jira tickets; decisions update issue comments
../confluence-expert/	Meetings -> Confluence	Summaries stored in Confluence using meeting notes template
../senior-pm/	Meetings -> PM	Steering committee and stakeholder meeting summaries feed portfolio reporting
../delivery-manager/	Meetings -> DM	Release planning and incident review meeting outcomes feed delivery tracking