Meeting Minutes Reviewer

Overview

Review meeting minutes documents to ensure they meet quality standards for completeness, clarity, and traceability. Validate that all decisions are properly documented, action items have clear owners and deadlines, and content aligns with source materials such as hearing sheets or project artifacts.

When to Use

• After drafting meeting minutes and before distribution
• When reviewing minutes created by others for quality assurance
• When validating that minutes accurately reflect source materials (hearing sheets, transcripts)
• When ensuring action items meet trackability standards
• When preparing minutes for formal project documentation or audit trails

Prerequisites

• Python 3.9+
• No API keys required
• Standard library only (json, re, pathlib)

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Input Documents

Collect the meeting minutes document and any source materials:

1. Meeting minutes file (Markdown or plain text)
2. Source materials (optional):
   • Hearing sheet or agenda
   • Transcript or notes
   • Related project artifacts

Step 2: Run Automated Analysis

Execute the review script to analyze the minutes:

python3 scripts/review_minutes.py \
  --minutes path/to/minutes.md \
  --hearing-sheet path/to/hearing_sheet.md \
  --output review_report.json

Parameters:

• --minutes: Path to the meeting minutes file (required)
• --hearing-sheet: Path to source hearing sheet for consistency check (optional)
• --output: Output path for JSON report (default: stdout)
• --format: Output format: json or markdown (default: json)

Step 3: Review Quality Scores

Examine the quality scores across 5 dimensions:

Dimension	Weight	Description
Completeness	25%	Required sections present and populated
Action Items	25%	All items have owner, deadline, description
Decisions	20%	Decisions documented with context and rationale
Consistency	15%	Alignment with source materials
Clarity	15%	Clear language, no ambiguity

Step 4: Address Findings

Review the specific findings and recommendations:

1. Critical Issues — Must fix before distribution
2. Warnings — Should fix for quality
3. Suggestions — Nice-to-have improvements

Step 5: Generate Feedback Report

Create a structured feedback document for minutes authors:

python3 scripts/review_minutes.py \
  --minutes path/to/minutes.md \
  --format markdown \
  --output feedback_report.md

Output Format

JSON Report

{
  "schema_version": "1.0",
  "review_timestamp": "2025-01-15T10:30:00Z",
  "minutes_file": "path/to/minutes.md",
  "source_files": ["path/to/hearing_sheet.md"],
  "overall_score": 85,
  "dimension_scores": {
    "completeness": 90,
    "action_items": 80,
    "decisions": 85,
    "consistency": 85,
    "clarity": 85
  },
  "findings": [
    {
      "severity": "critical",
      "dimension": "action_items",
      "location": "line 45",
      "issue": "Action item missing deadline",
      "suggestion": "Add specific deadline date"
    }
  ],
  "summary": {
    "critical_count": 1,
    "warning_count": 3,
    "suggestion_count": 5
  }
}

Markdown Report

# Meeting Minutes Review Report

**File**: minutes.md
**Review Date**: 2025-01-15

## Overall Score: 85/100

| Dimension | Score | Status |
|-----------|-------|--------|
| Completeness | 90 | ✅ Good |
| Action Items | 80 | ⚠️ Needs Work |
| Decisions | 85 | ✅ Good |
| Consistency | 85 | ✅ Good |
| Clarity | 85 | ✅ Good |

## Critical Issues (1)

### Action item missing deadline
- **Location**: Line 45
- **Issue**: Action item lacks a specific deadline
- **Suggestion**: Add deadline in format "Due: YYYY-MM-DD"

## Warnings (3)
...

## Suggestions (5)
...

Resources

• scripts/review_minutes.py — Main review script with quality analysis
• references/review-criteria.md — Detailed scoring criteria and quality standards
• references/meeting-minutes-checklist.md — Complete checklist for meeting minutes

Key Principles

1. Actionability — Every action item must have an owner, deadline, and clear description
2. Traceability — Decisions should link back to discussion context
3. Completeness — All required sections present with meaningful content
4. Consistency — Content aligns with source materials and project terminology
5. Clarity — No ambiguous language; concrete over vague