Foundation Meeting Brief

<!-- PM-Skills | https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills | Apache 2.0 -->

Meeting Brief

A meeting brief is the user's private strategic preparation document for a meeting where context, stakes, or positioning matter. It captures what the user needs to know, what they want to accomplish, who they are engaging with, and how to navigate the conversation. This is strategic prep, not meeting structure, which keeps it distinct from a meeting agenda.

This skill belongs to the Meeting Skills Family. It conforms to the Meeting Skills Family Contract.

When to Use

• Walking into a stakeholder review, exec briefing, or negotiation-adjacent conversation
• First meeting with a new stakeholder where relationship calibration matters
• A meeting where the user needs something from others (capacity commitment, decision, approval)
• Any conversation where specific positioning, messaging, or risk navigation is required

When NOT to Use

• Preparing the agenda attendees will see. Use foundation-meeting-agenda instead.
• Post-meeting summarization. Use foundation-meeting-recap.
• The meeting is low-stakes and well-trodden (recurring team sync, standup). A brief is overhead for these; the agenda alone is sufficient.

Zero-friction execution

Per the family contract, this skill never blocks on interrogation. Default flow:

1. Read all provided inputs (topic, attendees, prior recaps, stakeholder summaries, user's primary ask) 2. Auto-discover related artifacts via project or topics frontmatter match 3. Run inference on missing values (stakeholder positions from prior recaps, primary ask from topic, top-3 goals from meeting type) 4. Present a brief inference summary and accept one-word go or corrections 5. Produce the brief

If invoked with --go, skip the inference summary. If the user provides all values upfront, no checkpoint appears.

The skill runs on inferred stakeholder positions with low-confidence flags when no stakeholder summaries are provided; it does not block on missing inputs.

Anti-meeting check

This skill opens with the shared anti-meeting check. see `foundation-meeting-agenda` for the full check.

v1.1.0: the check requires a positive synchronous-value statement (tradeoff to discuss, conflict to resolve, co-creation, relationship-building, or blocker escalation). Brief-prep scenarios most often pass because they typically involve navigating stakeholder positions or negotiation dynamics. which qualify as "conflict to resolve" or "relationship-building." But the check still runs, and if no synchronous value is named, the skill recommends the async alternative before producing a brief.

Load-bearing inference gates (v1.1.0): when stakeholder positions, primary ask, or decision-maker attribution are inferred below-high confidence, flag in the go-mode summary with ⚠. The brief's tactical guidance depends on these; silent acceptance of weak inferences creates risky advice. See family contract "Zero-friction execution" section.

Instructions

When asked to create a meeting brief, follow these steps:

1. Run anti-meeting check Apply the trigger patterns. If matched, propose async alternative and await override.

2. Parse and load inputs Read the topic. Load any @file references. Auto-discover related artifacts: prior recaps on same topic (same project/topics frontmatter), stakeholder summaries from /discover-stakeholder-summary outputs, related project docs.

3. Infer missing values Apply these rules:

4. Present go-mode inference summary Show the inferred stakeholder positions, primary ask, top-3 goals. Accept go or corrections.

5. Build the background section Relevant history, prior decisions, recent developments. Cross-reference prior recaps by filename when available.

6. Do per-stakeholder analysis For each key attendee: position on topic, stakes (what they win or lose), likely concerns, relationship state (strong / neutral / strained), tactical notes (how to engage).

7. Rank desired outcomes Must achieve / should achieve / nice to achieve. Force the tradeoff explicitly.

8. Draft key messages In priority order, phrased for delivery. Not bullet points to read; phrased as you would say them.

9. Anticipate questions and responses Table format: Q | prepared response. Aim for the three questions the user is most likely to get.

10. Identify risks and tensions With explicit mitigations. Flag anything that could derail the meeting.

11. Specify asks What the user needs from specific people by name. Not generic "get alignment" but "ask alex to commit eng capacity for Q2 by Thursday."

12. Define success signals How the user knows in the moment that the meeting went well. Behavioral cues, not just outcome markers.

13. Render TEMPLATE.md and validate

• visibility: private default
• Stakeholder list has minimum fields (name, position) when present
• Primary ask is non-empty (use "alignment" or "information gathering" if no specific ask)

Quality checklist

• [ ] Anti-meeting check was applied and recorded
• [ ] visibility: private default applied
• [ ] Background section cross-references prior recaps when available
• [ ] Every key stakeholder has a position, stakes, concerns, relationship state entry (with confidence markers on inferred fields)
• [ ] Desired outcomes are ranked (must / should / nice), not flat
• [ ] Key messages are phrased for delivery, not for reading
• [ ] Anticipated Q&A table has 3 or more entries
• [ ] Asks are specific (named person, specific ask, by-when)
• [ ] Shareable summary suitable for trusted-advisor review only (flagged as such)
• [ ] Sources and References section includes Generation context with inferences flagged

See also

• Meeting Skills Family Contract
• `foundation-meeting-agenda`. shares the anti-meeting check
• `/discover-stakeholder-summary`. upstream input source for stakeholder positions

Meeting brief: Q2 Roadmap Commitment with CFO

Shareable summary

Q2 Roadmap Commitment with CFO | 2026-04-18 Purpose: Secure CFO signoff on engineering capacity allocation for search feature in Q2 Top goals: 1. CFO verbal yes on search feature capacity allocation 2. Agreement on how Q1 overrun gets absorbed without cutting Q2 scope 3. Clear check-in cadence for Q2 (monthly review vs. ad-hoc) Key risk: CFO uses Q1 overrun to impose capacity cap that would force scope cut Primary ask: CFO signoff on eng capacity for search feature in Q2 despite Q1 overrun

---

Full brief

Context

• Meeting: Q2 Roadmap Commitment, 2026-04-18, 45 min
• Format: In-person (CFO office)
• Attendees and roles: jonathan (decision-maker, running this), priya-cfo (decision-maker), maria-cpo (contributor, supporting)
• Chair or facilitator: jonathan

Background

• Q1 search feature work overran by 15% on eng hours; scope held but deadline slipped 2 weeks
• CFO has been vocal in leadership about "disciplined capacity" this year; Q1 overrun landed during her messaging
• Maria (CPO) already signaled private support for search in Q2; this is a two-on-one dynamic
• Prior exec review on 2026-03-20 flagged Q1 overrun but did not set a capacity policy; this meeting may be where that policy lands

Stakeholder reads

priya-cfo (CFO)

• Position on topic: wants to hold line on eng capacity; skeptical of scope creep on search after Q1 overrun [confidence: high, from prior exec review comments]
• Stakes: accountability for delivering financial discipline messaging; a Q2 overrun would damage that narrative
• Likely concerns: "why should I trust Q2 commitments after Q1 slipped?"; "what stops this from happening again?"; "what's the cost if we cut scope instead?"
• Relationship state: neutral; worked together for 2 years; she's direct but fair; respects data, impatient with handwaving
• Tactical notes: lead with data on Q1 root cause (not excuses); offer specific capacity discipline mechanism (monthly review); have a pre-committed scope-cut fallback ready to show you thought about it

maria-cpo (CPO)

• Position on topic: supports v2 ship; wants search feature in Q2 [confidence: high, confirmed in 1:1 yesterday]
• Stakes: her product strategy relies on search shipping Q2; any cut affects broader product narrative
• Likely concerns: if CFO pushes for scope cut, she wants to back the PM's specific proposal rather than improvise
• Relationship state: strong; aligned on substance
• Tactical notes: prep her before the meeting on the specific asks so she reinforces rather than improvising; have her in supporting-speaker role, not co-presenter (keeps dynamic focused)

Desired outcomes (ranked)

1. Must achieve: CFO verbal yes on search feature capacity in Q2 2. Should achieve: Agreement on how Q1 overrun is absorbed without Q2 scope cut 3. Nice to achieve: Monthly Q2 review cadence agreed (creates accountability mechanism CFO can trust)

Key messages

1. "Q1 overrun had a specific identifiable cause (design handoff delay); we've added a handoff checkpoint to prevent recurrence. Root cause is addressed, not excused." 2. "Search feature in Q2 has a specific capacity ask: 8 eng-weeks. Here's the tradeoff map if any cut is needed." 3. "I'd like to propose a monthly Q2 review so you have a formal mechanism to catch issues early, not post-hoc."

Anticipated questions and responses

Risks and tensions

• CFO uses Q1 overrun to impose a capacity cap that forces scope cut: Mitigation. have the tradeoff map ready to make the cost of cutting visible, not abstract. Don't let "just cut scope" be a costless answer.
• Meeting drifts to broader capacity policy discussion, postponing search decision: Mitigation. explicit ask upfront: "I have 3 things I need today; happy to schedule a separate capacity-policy conversation."

Asks

• From priya-cfo: verbal yes on search feature eng capacity for Q2 (8 eng-weeks)
• From priya-cfo: agreement on absorbing Q1 overrun from Q2 slack rather than cutting Q2 scope
• From maria-cpo: reinforce the scope rationale if priya pushes on cuts; do not co-present the ask (keeps the dynamic clean)

Success signals

• priya-cfo engages with the tradeoff map (asks specific questions) rather than dismissing with generic capacity concerns
• priya-cfo proposes her own cadence mechanism, indicating she's problem-solving with us rather than gatekeeping
• maria-cpo stays in supporting role, not improvising new asks

---

Sources & References

Primary inputs

• User-provided context: "Brief me for CFO meeting tomorrow on Q2 roadmap"
• Yesterday's 1:1 with maria-cpo (verbally confirmed support)

Referenced artifacts

• Agenda: none (no shared agenda; brief for jonathan's prep only)
• Prior recaps on this topic: 2026-03-20_15-00EST_exec-review_recap.md (referenced for Q1 overrun context)
• Related stakeholder summaries: stakeholder_priya-cfo.md (loaded)

External references

• Q2 capacity model
• Search feature scope tradeoff map

Generation context

• Generated: 2026-04-17T09:00:00Z
• Skill version: 1.0.0
• Input quality: high. user provided meeting context, stakeholder summary existed, prior recap referenced Q1 overrun dynamics
• Overall confidence: medium. stakeholder positions are high-confidence; anticipated questions are medium-confidence (inferred from typical CFO objections + priya's known style)
• Known gaps: Do not know if priya-cfo has spoken to maria-cpo 1:1 about this; if yes, she may already have a position shaped by those conversations
• Inferences applied: priya's likely concerns inferred from prior exec review + style [confidence: medium]; anticipated questions inferred from CFO-role patterns [confidence: medium]
• Anti-meeting check: Ran. override accepted (exec decision with relationship dynamic warrants sync conversation; async would risk misinterpretation of capacity commitment)

Meeting brief: {{Meeting title}}

Shareable summary

[guidance: private-use by default. Share only with trusted advisor, co-presenter, or manager if needed. Flags purpose, top 3 goals, key risk, primary ask.]

{{Meeting title}} | {{Date}} Purpose: {{One-line purpose}} Top goals: 1. {{Goal 1}} 2. {{Goal 2}} 3. {{Goal 3}} Key risk: {{One-line risk or tension to watch}} Primary ask: {{What the user needs from the meeting}}

---

Full brief

Context

• Meeting: {{Title}}, {{Date}}, {{Duration}}
• Format: {{In-person / remote / hybrid}}
• Attendees and roles: {{List}}
• Chair or facilitator: {{Name}}

Background

[guidance: relevant history, prior decisions, recent developments the user needs top-of-mind]

• {{Point 1}}
• {{Point 2}}
• {{Point 3}}

Stakeholder reads

[guidance: per key attendee, capture position, stakes, likely concerns, relationship state, tactical notes]

{{Stakeholder 1}} ({{Role}})

• Position on topic: {{Known or inferred view}} [confidence: {{level}}]
• Stakes: {{What they win or lose}}
• Likely concerns: {{What they'll push on}}
• Relationship state: {{Strong / neutral / strained}}
• Tactical notes: {{How to engage them}}

{{Stakeholder 2}} ({{Role}})

• Position on topic: {{view}} [confidence: {{level}}]
• Stakes: {{stakes}}
• Likely concerns: {{concerns}}
• Relationship state: {{state}}
• Tactical notes: {{notes}}

Desired outcomes (ranked)

1. Must achieve: {{Non-negotiable outcome}} 2. Should achieve: {{Strong preference}} 3. Nice to achieve: {{Bonus outcome}}

Key messages

[guidance: what the user wants to communicate, in priority order, phrased for delivery]

1. {{Message 1}} 2. {{Message 2}} 3. {{Message 3}}

Anticipated questions and responses

Risks and tensions

• {{Risk 1}}: {{Mitigation}}
• {{Risk 2}}: {{Mitigation}}

Asks

• From {{Person}}: {{What the user needs, by when}}
• From {{Person}}: {{ask}}

Success signals

[guidance: how the user will know the meeting went well in the moment. behavioral cues, not just outcome markers]

• {{Signal 1}}
• {{Signal 2}}

---

Sources & References

Primary inputs

• User-provided context: {{summary}}
• Stakeholder summaries (if discovered): {{filenames}}

Referenced artifacts

• Agenda: {{filename if exists}}
• Prior recaps on this topic: {{filenames}}
• Related stakeholder summaries: {{filenames}}

External references

• {{Relevant docs and links}}

Generation context

• Generated: {{Timestamp}}
• Skill version: 1.0.0
• Input quality: {{high | medium | low}}. {{rationale}}
• Overall confidence: {{high | medium | low}}. {{rationale}}
• Known gaps: {{List or "None identified"}}
• Inferences applied: {{list of inferred values with confidence}}
• Anti-meeting check: {{Ran. override accepted | Ran. async alternative produced instead}}