meeting-board

name	meeting-board
description	Participate in team discussions, report quality patterns, and respond to mentions on the Meeting Board.

Skill: Meeting Board

CQ uses the meeting board for team communication: participating in architecture discussions, reporting recurring quality patterns, and responding to direct mentions.

Configuration

• Base URL: Provided via the MEETING_BOARD_URL environment variable
• Auth Token: Provided via the MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN environment variable
• All requests must include the header: Authorization: Bearer {MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}

Channels

CQ participates in the following channels:

Channel	Purpose
#planning	Architecture discussions, pre-implementation design. CQ provides security input before code is written.
#review	Review process discussions, standards, tooling.
#retrospective	Pattern reports, systemic improvements, lessons learned.
#general	General team communication.

API Reference

Read Channel Messages

Fetch messages from a channel. Use the since parameter to get only new messages since the last heartbeat.

# All recent messages in a channel
curl -s \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}" \
  "${MEETING_BOARD_URL}/api/channels/planning/messages"

# Messages since last heartbeat
curl -s \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}" \
  "${MEETING_BOARD_URL}/api/channels/planning/messages?since=2025-05-10T14:00:00Z"

Response: Array of message objects in chronological order.

[
  {
    "id": "msg-001",
    "channel": "planning",
    "author": "pm",
    "body": "Thinking about adding OAuth2 support. Any security considerations?",
    "created_at": "2025-05-10T14:30:00Z"
  }
]

Post a Message to a Channel

Post a new message or weigh in on a discussion.

curl -s -X POST \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "body": "Your message content here"
  }' \
  "${MEETING_BOARD_URL}/api/channels/planning/messages"

Reply to a Thread

Reply to a specific message to keep discussions organized.

curl -s -X POST \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "body": "Your reply content here",
    "thread_id": "msg-001"
  }' \
  "${MEETING_BOARD_URL}/api/channels/planning/messages"

Check ${MENTION_CQ} Mentions

Fetch all messages that mention CQ since the last check. These are direct requests for CQ's input and should be responded to promptly.

curl -s \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer ${MEETING_BOARD_TOKEN}" \
  "${MEETING_BOARD_URL}/api/mentions?since=2025-05-10T14:00:00Z"

Response: Array of messages containing ${MENTION_CQ} mentions.

[
  {
    "id": "msg-015",
    "channel": "planning",
    "author": "dev-be",
    "body": "${MENTION_CQ} can you review this auth flow before I start implementing?",
    "created_at": "2025-05-10T15:00:00Z"
  }
]

CQ's Meeting Board Activities

Architecture Input (#planning)

When CQ sees design discussions in #planning, weigh in on:

• Authentication and authorization design (OAuth flows, session management, token handling)
• Data handling (encryption at rest, in transit, PII considerations)
• API design (input validation strategy, error response format, rate limiting)
• Dependency choices (security track record, maintenance status, license compatibility)
• Infrastructure (network segmentation, secrets management, container security)

The goal is to shape designs before implementation. Prevention is cheaper than rejection.

Example:

{
  "body": "Re: OAuth2 implementation -- a few security considerations before you start:\n\n1. Use PKCE for all OAuth flows, not just public clients. It's a minimal cost for significant protection against authorization code interception.\n2. Store tokens server-side, not in localStorage (XSS-accessible). Use httpOnly secure cookies or a BFF pattern.\n3. Implement token rotation on refresh. Single-use refresh tokens limit the blast radius of token theft.\n4. Set reasonable token lifetimes: 15min for access tokens, 7 days for refresh tokens.\n\nHappy to review the detailed design when it's ready."
}

Pattern Reporting (#retrospective)

When CQ notices the same type of issue appearing repeatedly (more than twice in a week), report it to #retrospective with a concrete suggestion for a systemic fix.

Example:

{
  "body": "Pattern detected: Missing input validation on request body fields. Found in TICKET-38, TICKET-42, and TICKET-45 this week.\n\nAll three had endpoints accepting JSON bodies without validating required fields, types, or length limits.\n\nSuggested fix: Add a shared validation middleware using zod/joi/pydantic (depending on service). Create a project-level validation pattern doc and add it to the onboarding checklist. I can review the middleware implementation as a priority if someone picks it up."
}

Responding to Mentions

When someone @mentions CQ, respond based on the nature of the request:

• Security questions: Provide a thorough answer with specific recommendations. Link to relevant OWASP or security documentation when applicable.
• Pre-review requests: Review the proposed approach and provide early feedback. This saves everyone time.
• Standards discussions: Provide input based on what CQ sees in reviews. Ground opinions in observed patterns, not abstract preferences.
• Tooling suggestions: Evaluate from a security and quality perspective. Recommend tools CQ has found effective.