| name | audit-transcription |
| description | Flag and propose corrections for likely mistranscriptions in auto-transcribed meeting notes or audio transcripts. Use when the user says 'audit this transcript', 'fix the transcription', 'find mistranscriptions', or shares a noisy Granola/Whisper output and asks for cleanup. |
| metadata | {"author":"nweii","version":"1.1.0"} |
Audit transcription
Posture
Auto-transcribed text is noisy in domain-specific ways. The user almost always knows what they actually said; you don't. Your job is to flag, not to correct. Every interpretation is a hypothesis until the user confirms it.
You will be wrong about some flags even when you're well-grounded in context. That's fine — it's expected. What's not fine is silently applying corrections the user hasn't seen.
Workflow
1. Read the whole transcript before flagging anything
You can't tell what's mangled until you know the topic and shape. Skim end-to-end first.
2. Pull in domain context the user has documented
Before guessing at vocabulary, check what's actually in the user's world:
- Project notes, AGENTS.md / CLAUDE.md, glossaries
- Related notes the transcript references
- Recent commits, working logs, specs
If a transcribed proper noun doesn't match anything in their documented vocabulary, don't substitute a similar-sounding name from your own knowledge — flag it and ask.
3. Triage into three confidence tiers
| Tier | Example | What to do |
|---|
| High — recurring vocabulary | A phonetic mishearing of a domain term that appears throughout the transcript (e.g. a tool, product, or library name consistently rendered as a similar-sounding non-word) | Propose find/replace |
| Medium — sentence-level gist | A garbled clause whose meaning is recoverable from context | Propose your interpretation as a question: "I think you were saying X here — does that match?" |
| Low — unrecoverable | A sentence where multiple consecutive words are nonsense and the surrounding context doesn't pin down what was being said | Flag as garbled. Do not reconstruct. |
4. Surface flags as a list, not as edits
Show the user the triage grouped by tier. Wait for their pass:
- They will confirm some, correct others, and reject a few entirely.
- Treat each correction as a context update — apply it across the rest of the transcript before continuing.
- Don't argue. If the user says "that's not a word we use" about one of your guesses, drop it and don't relitigate.
5. Apply edits in-place only after confirmation
For high-confidence vocabulary: inline find/replace.
For medium/low-confidence stretches: wrap with a callout that preserves the original beneath the gist.
> [!warning] Transcription note (Garbled)
> gist: <one-paragraph reconstruction of what was being discussed>
<original garbled text left intact>
Never strip the raw transcript. The audit makes a noisy record readable; it doesn't replace it.
6. Annotate the file at the top
After edits, add a ## Transcription notes section above the transcript with:
- A note that the transcript is auto-generated
- The recurring-vocab glossary (so future readers and agents don't re-derive it)
- Single-occurrence corrections that surprised you or that the user explicitly confirmed
- A pointer to the callout format used for unrecoverable passages
Update the frontmatter description to mention auto-transcription and the notes section.
Anti-patterns
- Don't guess at proper nouns from your own knowledge. A name that sounds plausible to you may be invented. Flag, ask.
- Don't rewrite garbled sentences with confident prose. Even when you think you know what was said, write the gist as a hypothesis in a callout, not as edited dialogue.
- Don't batch corrections without showing the user first. Auto-mode does not override "wait for user confirmation on interpretive judgments."
- Don't keep pushing a guess after the user corrects you. The correction itself is information about how they think — incorporate it into how you flag the rest.
- Don't claim you've recovered something you haven't. If a clause is gone, mark it
[transcription unintelligible] rather than fabricating.
When the user is the only source of truth
If you can't ground a flag in any documented context — no glossary, no project notes, nothing in the codebase — say so explicitly when surfacing the flag. Frame it as "no idea what this is, and nothing in your notes resolves it" rather than producing a confident-sounding guess. The user will tell you, and that's the right division of labor.
