| name | pm-meeting-debrief |
| description | Given a Granola meeting transcript, extract commitments (yours and theirs), identify decisions made, draft follow-up messages, and update the relevant project's `todos.md` and `stakeholders.md`. Use right after a meeting to close the loop before the context fades. Surfaces commitments that need to be captured into the project state, drafts the follow-ups, and asks the user to approve writes. |
PM meeting debrief
The most underused PM workflow. After every meeting, most teams lose 20 to 40 percent of the value because commitments aren't captured, decisions aren't logged, and follow-ups don't happen. This skill closes that loop.
Given a Granola transcript, the skill extracts commitments, surfaces decisions, drafts follow-up messages, and proposes updates to the project state files. The user approves writes; the agent never writes to pm-state/ without confirmation.
When to use
- Right after a meeting (within an hour), when context is fresh
- At end-of-day, against all of today's transcripts
- As part of
pm-morning-brief's "yesterday's loose threads" handling
Don't use when:
- The meeting has no Granola transcript (the skill needs the transcript as input)
- The transcript is purely social or social-only (no work content)
- A debrief has already been run on the same transcript (don't duplicate)
How to apply
1. Chain to pm-context-loader
Load you.md, the project list, cross-project stakeholders.
2. Identify the transcript
If the user named a specific meeting, pull that transcript. Otherwise:
- Pull recent transcripts via the Granola MCP
- Identify the most recent one not yet debriefed (look for absence in the relevant project's recent decisions or todos with the meeting date)
- If ambiguous, ask: "You have [N] recent transcripts. Which one — [list]?"
3. Identify the project
Most meetings map to a project. Determine which:
- Cross-reference attendees with project stakeholders files
- Use the meeting title and content
- If unclear, ask the user
If the meeting is cross-project, skip project-specific state and operate against pm-state/stakeholders.md and pm-state/decisions-log.md.
4. Extract commitments
Read the transcript. For each commitment, capture:
- Who owns it — the user, a named attendee, or "the team"
- What the commitment is — specific action
- Due date — explicit if stated, inferred if implied, "TBD" if unknown
- Confidence — was this a firm commitment ("I'll send the PRD by Friday") or a softer one ("we should probably look into that")
Be conservative on the soft ones. Mark them clearly so the user can decide what to keep.
5. Identify decisions made
A decision is different from a commitment. Decisions get logged in decisions.md; commitments get logged in todos.md.
For each decision, capture:
- What was decided
- Context — what triggered it
- Reasoning — why this over alternatives
- Reversibility — one-way or two-way
- Who agreed — explicit consent vs. acquiescence vs. unclear
Surface decisions that the meeting made without explicit consent — those are common, and they often unwind later when someone in the room realizes they didn't agree.
6. Draft follow-up messages
For commitments where the user owes a deliverable to a named person, draft the follow-up message:
- Subject line that names the commitment
- One-paragraph body in the user's voice (refer to
you.md for style)
- Specific date for the deliverable
Do NOT auto-send. Surface the draft for the user to approve and send.
For commitments where someone else owes the user, draft a polite follow-up confirming the commitment in writing — that's how soft commitments become firm ones.
7. Propose state updates
Show the user what should be written where:
pm-state/projects/<name>/todos.md — new commitments as TODO itemspm-state/projects/<name>/decisions.md — new decisions with the four-line shapepm-state/projects/<name>/stakeholders.md — update "last interaction" date and any new context on attendeespm-state/projects/<name>/open-questions.md — questions raised in the meeting that didn't get answered
For each proposed write, show the user the exact diff and ask: "Write this update? [yes / edit / skip]"
Apply each write only after explicit approval.
8. Surface what was NOT covered
A useful section: what was on the agenda but didn't get discussed. Often the most important items get squeezed off. Surface them so the user can decide whether to schedule a follow-up.
Output structure
# Meeting debrief: [Meeting title] — [Date]
## TL;DR
[One paragraph honest take. Did this meeting close the loop on what it was supposed to? What got decided, what got punted?]
## Commitments
**From [the user]:**
- [item] — due [date], to [name]. [Confidence: firm / soft.]
- ...
**From [others]:**
- [name]: [item] — due [date], to you. [Confidence: firm / soft.]
- ...
## Decisions made
For each decision:
**[Decision title]**
- Context: ...
- Choice: ...
- Reasoning: ...
- Reversibility: one-way / two-way
- Agreement: explicit / acquiescent / unclear
- Proposed write: `pm-state/projects/<name>/decisions.md`
## Draft follow-up messages
**To [name] re: [commitment]:**
[Draft message body in the user's voice]
[Repeat for each follow-up.]
## Proposed state updates
For each proposed write, show:
- File path
- The exact lines to add
- Ask: write this? [yes / edit / skip]
## What didn't get covered
[Items that were on the agenda or implied but didn't get discussed. Recommend whether to schedule a follow-up.]
## Loose ends to watch
[Things said in the meeting that don't fit cleanly into commitments or decisions but might matter later. Surfaced for awareness, not action.]
---
*Run `pm-stakeholder-tracker` if the meeting changed open commitments across multiple stakeholders.*
What good looks like
- Catches the soft commitments. Most debriefs catch the firm ones. The soft "we should look at that" commitments are where work gets lost. Surface them, mark them clearly, let the user decide.
- Distinguishes commitments from decisions. They go to different files and have different shapes. Confusing them creates a TODO list that's actually a decision log, or vice versa.
- Drafts in the user's voice. Refer to
you.md for style. No "I wanted to circle back to..." if the user is direct.
- Asks before writing. Every write to a state file gets explicit user approval. The agent never updates the user's memory unilaterally.
- Surfaces what wasn't said. What was on the agenda but didn't happen is often more important than what did.
Anti-patterns
- Auto-sending follow-ups. Never. Drafts only. The user reviews and sends.
- Auto-writing to state files. Never. Proposes writes, asks for approval, then applies.
- Treating every utterance as a commitment. Most aren't. Filter aggressively. Better to miss a soft commitment than to fill the user's todos.md with noise.
- Forgetting to mark confidence on soft commitments. A "maybe" commitment in the TODO list will rot and become noise. Mark it clearly so the user knows it needs follow-up to firm up.
- Skipping the "what didn't get covered" section. The misses are signal. Always include this section, even if it's empty.
Chain with other skills
pm-context-loader — always first.pm-stakeholder-tracker — after debriefing, if open commitments changed for multiple stakeholders.pm-morning-brief — calls this skill (implicitly) to surface yesterday's loose threads.pm-prd-drafter or pm-decision-coach — if the meeting raised a decision that needs more work, chain to the relevant skill afterward.
How to invoke
Common invocation patterns:
- "Debrief my 10am with Sarah."
- "Pull the most recent Granola transcript and run a debrief."
- "Close the loop on yesterday's meetings."
- Used implicitly by
pm-morning-brief to surface yesterday's loose threads.
If invoked with no transcript available, respond: "I can't find a Granola transcript for that meeting. Did the meeting have Granola running? If yes, want me to wait and try again in a few minutes? If no, you can manually paste notes here and I'll run the debrief on those."
