Skill: Meeting Ingest

When to activate

The user shares a meeting transcript (text or a doc link).
The user says: "process this meeting", "ingest", "meeting note", "analyze this meeting".
The user uploads a file named meet*, transcript*, recording*, or a doc of a session.
You detect the shared content is clearly a multi-speaker transcript.

Do NOT use meeting-ingest when:

The content is < 200 words → use braindump.
The meeting is only upcoming (pre-meeting briefing) → make a manual prep note.
It's just the user's short notes → use braindump.

Preflight

Read _CLAUDE.md (rules, structure, conventions) and 00-inbox/MY-PROFILE.md (working language, sensitive-meetings list, per-skill preferences).
Get the real timestamp of processing time.
Determine the meeting date (priority: from the transcript / calendar invite; fallback: ask).
Capture the source link — if the transcript comes from a Google Doc, a recording, or a calendar event, keep its URL verbatim for the source: field, so you can jump back to the original later. If there's no link (pasted text), set source: "pasted transcript".
List existing notes in 02-people/ and 03-projects/ for reference resolution.
Determine the invocation mode:
- Manual: the user invokes it explicitly → standard behavior.
- Auto: invoked by daily-brief orchestration → adapted behavior (see "Auto mode").

Source priority — transcript-first, summary fallback

Google Meet (and most call platforms) produce two Drive artifacts after a meeting:

A transcript tab/file — full verbatim of what was said. This is the ground truth.
A summary / AI notes tab — a model-generated digest, default tab in Drive's preview. This is lossy: it drops dynamics, side-discussions, contested exchanges, the exact wording of decisions, and most action-item nuance.

Rule: when ingesting from a Drive doc / Meet artifact, you ALWAYS read the transcript first. The summary is a fallback, not a default.

Decision tree

Transcript available (transcript tab populated, or a separate *-transcript.docx / *.vtt next to the recording in Drive) → use the transcript verbatim as the source. Record transcript-source: verbatim in frontmatter.
Transcript missing but summary available → fall back to the summary. Mark the meeting note with degraded confidence:
- confidence: medium in frontmatter.
- transcript-source: summary-fallback in frontmatter.
- "For future Claude" preamble must state explicitly: *Source: summary tab (transcript unavailable). Information loss expected — dynamics, exact decision wording, and side-discussions are not captured.*
- needs-review: true (the user may want to re-process if the transcript appears later).
Neither available → do not ingest. Flag in the brief for manual handling.

Why this matters

Summaries elide ~40-60% of useful signal: the framing of disagreement, the exact phrasing of commitments, the moments of hesitation that reveal real risk. challenge-decision and people-update rely on those nuances. Defaulting to the summary tab is the single biggest quiet quality leak in the orchestration — don't take it.

Auto mode (invoked by daily-brief)

When this skill is invoked by daily-brief orchestration (not directly by the user):

Behavioral differences

Frontmatter: ingestion-mode: auto and needs-review: true.
"For future Claude" preamble explicitly states: *Auto-ingested via daily-brief on YYYY-MM-DD. needs-review flag is true until the user confirms during morning review.*
Hard-to-reverse decisions: flag needs-validation: true in the meeting note rather than auto-creating a dedicated 05-decisions/ note. The user creates the decision note later if they validate.
Newly detected people: no auto-creation of a stub. List them for the user to validate.
Ambiguous participant fuzzy-match: use the best guess but flag needs-review instead of asking interactively.
No user interaction: if critical data is missing, insert an explicit placeholder with ⚠️ to verify on review rather than a question (the scheduler runs autonomously).

Auto-ingestion guardrails

Auto-ingest ONLY if ALL of these are true:

✅ Matches a calendar event (title / participants / time).
✅ Participants ≥ 2 including the user.
✅ Calendar duration ≥ 15 minutes.
✅ NOT in the sensitive-meetings list of 00-inbox/MY-PROFILE.md.
✅ NOT already ingested (cross-check 04-meetings/).

If any condition fails → do NOT ingest. daily-brief flags it for manual validation.

Source choice (auto mode): the transcript-first rule (see Source priority) applies the same way in auto mode. If only the summary is available, daily-brief still ingests but with the degraded markers (confidence: medium, transcript-source: summary-fallback, needs-review: true) and a one-line callout in the brief: "N meetings ingested from summary only — transcript missing."

"Post-auto validation" mode

When the user later invokes meeting-ingest on an already auto-ingested note (signal: "validate the meeting from Tuesday with [X]"):

Read the existing note.
Re-process the original transcript if available.
Enrich the sections (especially decisions, action items, dynamics) with a more critical eye.
Update frontmatter: ingestion-mode: auto-validated and needs-review: false.
Note in the "For future Claude" preamble: *Validated by the user on YYYY-MM-DD.*
Append-only: keep the original auto-ingest sections; add "Validation notes" if needed.

Process

Step 1 — Initial parsing

Identify from the transcript:

Meeting date and time (if not in the transcript frontmatter, search the content).
Duration (start/end timestamps if available).
Participants: names, roles if mentioned.
Meeting type: 1-1 | team-sync | stakeholder | external | townhall.
Main topic: one summarizing sentence.

If ambiguous, ask ONE clarification (priority: type + associated project).

Step 2 — Participant resolution

For each identified participant:

Fuzzy-match against 02-people/*.md.
Unique match → direct wikilink.
Multiple matches → list to the user for a choice.
No match → offer to create a stub (with the role inferred from the transcript).
Always confirm before creating a new person note.

Step 3 — Noise filtering

Remove from the transcript:

Off-topic side chats.
Technical difficulties ("you're on mute", "can you see my screen").
Opening/closing pleasantries.
Exact repetitions.

⚠️ Keep verbatim the sentences that:

Contain a decision.
Commit someone to an action.
Express a disagreement or tension.
Give a number / a verifiable fact.

Step 4 — Structured extraction

For each section below, be exhaustive but factual:

4.1 Decisions

For each decision:

What: the decision itself (one clear sentence).
Why: the stated rationale (verbatim if possible).
Who: decision-maker(s) — wikilinks.
Reversibility: reversible | hard-to-reverse | one-way.
Impacted stakeholders: wikilinks.

4.2 Action items

For each action:

What: concrete action.
Owner: wikilink (else "unassigned" + flag).
Deadline: date if mentioned, else "unspecified".
Depends on: if applicable.

4.3 Strategic themes

2–4 themes max. No fluff — substantive angles.

4.4 Key quotes

The sentences worth keeping verbatim (citations, strong positions, useful phrasings).

4.5 Tensions and disagreements

If present: who vs. whom, on what, status (resolved / open).

4.6 Unresolved

What should have been settled and wasn't. With a proposed next step.

Step 5 — Dynamics analysis (optional, by meeting type)

For 1-1s and stakeholder meetings, add a dynamics section:

Participation / notable silences.
Leadership moments.
Perceived energy level.
Weak signal worth digging into.

Skip for townhalls / team-syncs.

Step 6 — Generate the note

Path: 04-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md

The <slug> reflects the topic, not the format (stakeholder-review-onboarding rather than tuesday-meeting).

Required format:

---
date: YYYY-MM-DD              # meeting date
ingested: YYYY-MM-DD          # ingestion date
type: meeting
tags: [meeting, <project-tags>, <topic-tags>]
participants: ["[[02-people/...]]", ...]
project: "[[03-projects/...]]"      # optional if cross-cutting
meeting-type: 1-1|team-sync|stakeholder|external|townhall
duration: <min>
source: "<verbatim link to the transcript / Google Doc / recording, or 'pasted transcript'>"
transcript-source: verbatim | summary-fallback   # which Drive tab/file was ingested
confidence: high | medium                        # medium when transcript-source: summary-fallback
ai-first: true
---

## For future Claude

This is the ingested record of a [meeting-type] held on [date] with [participants].
It covered [main topic]. Key outcomes: [N decisions, N action items]. [Note any
unresolved item or follow-up.]

## Context

[2-3 sentences: why this meeting, what preceded it, the situation at the time.]

## Participants

- [[02-people/Name 1]] — role in the meeting
- [[02-people/Name 2]] — role in the meeting

## Decisions

### [Short decision title]
- **What**: [decision]
- **Why**: "[verbatim or paraphrased rationale]"
- **Decision-maker(s)**: [[02-people/...]]
- **Reversibility**: reversible|hard-to-reverse|one-way
- **Impact**: [[02-people/...]], [[03-projects/...]]

[Repeat for each decision]

## Action items

<!-- Each line carries owner, due date, #from/meeting tag, and a ^t-id anchor for TODO.md sync -->
- [ ] [Action] — owner: me — due: YYYY-MM-DD — #from/meeting ^t-xxxxxx
- [ ] [Action] — owner: [[02-people/...]] — due: YYYY-MM-DD — #from/meeting ^t-xxxxxx
- [ ] [Action] — owner: unassigned ⚠️ — due: unspecified — #from/meeting ^t-xxxxxx

## Strategic themes

1. **[Theme 1]**: [1-2 sentences]
2. **[Theme 2]**: [1-2 sentences]

## Key quotes

> "[Verbatim quote]" — [[02-people/Name]], about [context]

## Tensions / Disagreements

[Optional section, skip if nothing to report.]

## Unresolved

- [Open question] — proposed next step: [action]

## Dynamics

[Optional section, mainly for 1-1 and stakeholder meetings.]

## Links

- Source: [original transcript / Google Doc / recording link, if any]
- People: [all participant + mentioned wikilinks]
- Projects: [wikilinks to discussed projects]
- Related decisions: [[05-decisions/...]] if a major decision was logged separately
- Previous meetings: [[04-meetings/...]] if part of a series

Step 7 — Propagation (CRITICAL)

This step is what keeps the system alive. Do NOT skip it.

7.1 Update people notes

For each participant existing in 02-people/:

Append a Timeline entry: - YYYY-MM-DD: [[04-meetings/<slug>]] — [one sentence on what happened for this person].
Update last-interaction in the frontmatter.
Append-only: never overwrite.

7.2 Update project notes

For each project referenced in 03-projects/:

Append to the "Timeline" section: - YYYY-MM-DD: meeting [[04-meetings/<slug>]] — [main outcome].
If decisions were made, append to the project's "Key decisions".
Update updated: in the frontmatter.

7.3 Important decisions → 05-decisions/

If a decision is hard-to-reverse or one-way, also create a dedicated note in 05-decisions/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md. These notes are the database for challenge-decision.

7.4 Wiki stubs for new concepts / entities (+ curator incremental)

Scan the transcript and the extracted note for things the user might want to look up later — concepts, tools, teams, processes, jargon, vendors. For each that does NOT already exist as 06-knowledge/<slug>.md:

Create a wiki stub per the Wiki stub protocol in .claude/skills/knowledge-build/SKILL.md (Mode A.2). type: wiki, needs-review: true, domain: <inferred> (from project / tags / MY-PROFILE knowledge-domains; else unsorted), created-from: "[[04-meetings/<this-meeting>]]", one verbatim 1-line snippet from the transcript in ## Sources.
Backlink from the meeting note's ## Links → Related wiki.
Call curator incremental (Mode C.1 of knowledge-build) so the new wiki page lands in the right 06-knowledge/<domain>.md hub and the root _INDEX.md refreshes. Silent for auto-maintained: true hubs.
If the meeting just enriches an existing wiki page, append new facts with citation to that page (Mode A.4) and call curator incremental for ## Recent activity.

In auto mode (called by daily-brief), stubs are created silently with needs-review: true — they're surfaced in the brief for the user to confirm/enrich.

7.5 Daily note

Append to 01-daily/YYYY-MM-DD.md (ingestion date) under ## Meetings ingested today:

- [[04-meetings/<slug>]] — [meeting-type] with [main participants]

7.6 Action items

Keep the action items in the meeting note (with ^t-id anchors). The ones the user owns are consolidated into the vault-root TODO.md by task-roundup (and by daily-brief's roundup phase) — no need to duplicate them anywhere else.

Step 8 — Report

✓ Meeting ingested: 04-meetings/2026-05-20-stakeholder-review-onboarding.md
✓ 3 participants linked: [[Alex Rivera]], [[Jordan Park]], [[Sam Lee]]
✓ 2 people notes updated (timeline + last-interaction)
✓ Project [[03-projects/Onboarding Refresh]] updated
✓ 1 major decision logged: 05-decisions/2026-05-20-centralize-tier1.md
✓ Daily note for 2026-05-20 updated

→ 2 unassigned action items ⚠️: owners need clarifying
→ 1 unresolved tension detected: "ownership of QA training" between Alex and Jordan
→ Suggestion: invoke challenge-decision on the tier-1 centralization (one-way, high impact)

Anti-patterns to avoid

❌ Keeping everything — filter the noise (mute, technical issues, side chats). ❌ Summarizing everything — preserve decisions and key quotes verbatim. ❌ Skipping propagation — step 7 is non-negotiable. ❌ Default owner — if no clear owner, flag with ⚠️, never assign arbitrarily. ❌ Inventing dates — if no deadline is mentioned, write "unspecified". ❌ Creating people without confirmation — for new names, ask the user.

Special cases

Multilingual transcript

Teams are often international. If a meeting is in English with a few phrases in another language, keep the original language in the quotes. The rest of the note stays in English (consistent with the AI-first preamble).

Low-quality transcript (raw voice-to-text)

If there are many ASR errors, flag it in the "For future Claude" preamble: Note: transcript quality is low (ASR errors). Verbatim quotes may contain transcription errors.

Recurring meeting (weekly 1-1, weekly sync)

Detect a series (same participants, same cadence). Link to the previous meeting in the series under "Links > Previous meetings".

1-1 with a direct report

These meetings are often the most frequent and strategic. Be more thorough on dynamics, objective tracking, and the report's development. Systematically link to the relevant [[03-projects/...]] coaching/development project if one exists.