Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions.
board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, /cs:boardroom, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives
/cs:boardroom [topic] — e.g. /cs:boardroom Should we expand to Spain in Q3?
~/.claude/company-context.md~/.claude/decisions/approved/ (Layer 2 ONLY — never raw transcripts)Chief of Staff selects relevant roles based on topic (not all 14 every time):
| Topic | Activate |
|---|---|
| Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO |
| Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO |
| Hiring/org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO (+ VPE for eng hiring) |
| Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO |
| Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO |
| Contracts / term sheets / legal exposure | GC, CEO, CFO |
| Data strategy / training-data rights | CDO, CAIO, GC, CISO |
| AI strategy / model selection / AI risk | CAIO, CTO, CDO, CFO |
| Retention / churn / customer success | CCO, CRO, CPO |
| Eng delivery / DORA / team structure | VPE, CTO, CHRO, CFO |
No cross-pollination. Each agent runs before seeing others' outputs.
Order: Research (if needed) → CMO → CFO → CEO → CTO → COO → CHRO → CRO → CISO → CPO → GC → CDO → CAIO → CCO → VPE (activated roles only)
Reasoning techniques: CEO: Tree of Thought (3 futures) | CFO: Chain of Thought (show the math) | CMO: Recursion of Thought (draft→critique→refine) | CPO: First Principles | CRO: Chain of Thought (pipeline math) | COO: Step by Step (process map) | CTO: ReAct (research→analyze→act) | CISO: Risk-Based (P×I) | CHRO: Empathy + Data | GC: Risk-Based (clause exposure) | CDO: Decision-Driven (what decision does this data drive) | CAIO: Eval-Demanding (no eval, no ship) | CCO: Retention-Obsessed (GRR over NRR) | VPE: Throughput-First (cycle-time math)
Contribution format (max 5 key points, self-verified):
## [ROLE] — [DATE]
Key points (max 5):
• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴
• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴
Recommendation: [clear position]
Confidence: High / Medium / Low
Source: [where the data came from]
What would change my mind: [specific condition]
Each agent self-verifies before contributing: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring. No untagged claims.
Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously. Role: adversarial reviewer, not synthesizer.
Checklist:
Chief of Staff delivers using the Board Meeting Output format (defined in ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md):
Full stop. Wait for the founder.
⏸️ FOUNDER REVIEW — [Paste synthesis]
Options: ✅ Approve | ✏️ Modify | ❌ Reject | ❓ Ask follow-up
Rules:
/cs:boardroom resumeAfter founder approval:
~/.claude/decisions/raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md~/.claude/decisions/approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md and append to the index ~/.claude/decisions/approved/decisions.md[DO_NOT_RESURFACE]Uses the canonical two-layer decision memory (see ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md → "Decision Memory (Canonical Layout)"):
~/.claude/decisions/
├── raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md # Layer 1 — full transcripts (never auto-loaded)
├── raw/archive/YYYY/ # Raw transcripts after 90 days
├── approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md # Layer 2 — founder-approved records (Phase 1 loads these)
└── approved/decisions.md # Layer 2 index — append-only
Future meetings load Layer 2 only. Never Layer 1. This prevents hallucinated consensus.
Migration: a legacy memory/board-meetings/ folder may exist from earlier versions; read it for history but write new transcripts and decisions to ~/.claude/decisions/.
| Failure | Fix |
|---|---|
| Groupthink (all agree) | Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against" |
| Analysis paralysis | Cap at 5 points; force recommendation even with Low confidence |
| Bikeshedding | Log as async action item; return to main agenda |
| Role bleed (CFO making product calls) | Critic flags; exclude from synthesis |
| Layer contamination | Phase 1 loads ~/.claude/decisions/approved/ only — hard rule |
templates/meeting-agenda.md — agenda formattemplates/meeting-minutes.md — final output formatreferences/meeting-facilitation.md — conflict handling, timing, failure modesまだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Accessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
When the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Adversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Mint a tamper-evident, post-quantum-signed receipt for a consequential agent action (deploy, delete, pay, grant-access, model decision) so it can be verified later from the certificate alone. Use when an autonomous agent takes a side-effecting action that may need to be proven later, or when satisfying EU AI Act Article 12 record-keeping. Three decisions: whether an action needs a receipt, minting it, verifying it. Signing is delegated to the open-source OpenAgentOntology package. Not after-the-fact log analysis; not a hosted notary; not a legal opinion.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。