跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

board-meeting

Examine strategic decisions through a structured meeting of AI agents representing executive roles. Gather independent recommendations, challenge assumptions, summarize disagreements, and record approved decisions with action owners and deadlines after the founder reviews the proposal.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

原文查看原文说明

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 /c-level-agents:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.

查看安装方法

适用场景

  • Evaluate market expansion from several executive perspectives
  • Compare views on product direction or pricing
  • Review hiring plans and organizational choices
  • Record approved decisions with action owners and deadlines

包含的文件(4)

  • SKILL.md6.5 KB
  • references/meeting-facilitation.md8.0 KB
  • templates/meeting-agenda.md2.0 KB
  • templates/meeting-minutes.md2.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

Board Meeting Protocol

Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions.

Keywords

board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, /c-level-agents:boardroom, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives

Invoke

/c-level-agents:boardroom [topic] — e.g. /c-level-agents:boardroom Should we expand to Spain in Q3?


The 6-Phase Protocol

PHASE 1: Context Gathering

  1. Load ~/.claude/company-context.md
  2. Load Layer 2 approved decisions from ~/.claude/decisions/approved/ (Layer 2 ONLY — never raw transcripts)
  3. Reset session state — no bleed from previous conversations
  4. Present agenda + activated roles → wait for founder confirmation

Chief of Staff selects relevant roles based on topic (not all 14 every time):

TopicActivate
Market expansionCEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO
Product directionCEO, CPO, CTO, CMO
Hiring/orgCEO, CHRO, CFO, COO (+ VPE for eng hiring)
PricingCMO, CFO, CRO, CPO
TechnologyCTO, CPO, CFO, CISO
Contracts / term sheets / legal exposureGC, CEO, CFO
Data strategy / training-data rightsCDO, CAIO, GC, CISO
AI strategy / model selection / AI riskCAIO, CTO, CDO, CFO
Retention / churn / customer successCCO, CRO, CPO
Eng delivery / DORA / team structureVPE, CTO, CHRO, CFO

PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)

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.


PHASE 3: Critic Analysis

Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously. Role: adversarial reviewer, not synthesizer.

Checklist:

  • Where did agents agree too easily? (suspicious consensus = red flag)
  • What assumptions are shared but unvalidated?
  • Who is missing from the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?)
  • What risk has nobody mentioned?
  • Which agent operated outside their domain?

PHASE 4: Synthesis

Chief of Staff delivers using the Board Meeting Output format (defined in ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md):

  • Decision Required (one sentence)
  • Perspectives (one line per contributing role)
  • Where They Agree / Where They Disagree
  • Critic's View (the uncomfortable truth)
  • Recommended Decision + Action Items (owners, deadlines)
  • Your Call (options if founder disagrees)

PHASE 5: Human in the Loop ⏸️

Full stop. Wait for the founder.

⏸️ FOUNDER REVIEW — [Paste synthesis]

Options: ✅ Approve | ✏️ Modify | ❌ Reject | ❓ Ask follow-up

Rules:

  • User corrections OVERRIDE agent proposals. No pushback. No "but the CFO said..."
  • 30-min inactivity → auto-close as "pending review"
  • Reopen any time with /c-level-agents:boardroom resume

PHASE 6: Decision Extraction

After founder approval:

  • Layer 1: Write full transcript → ~/.claude/decisions/raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md
  • Layer 2: Write approved decision record → ~/.claude/decisions/approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md and append to the index ~/.claude/decisions/approved/decisions.md
  • Mark rejected proposals [DO_NOT_RESURFACE]
  • Confirm to founder with count of decisions logged, actions tracked, flags added

Memory Structure

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 Mode Quick Reference

FailureFix
Groupthink (all agree)Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against"
Analysis paralysisCap at 5 points; force recommendation even with Low confidence
BikesheddingLog as async action item; return to main agenda
Role bleed (CFO making product calls)Critic flags; exclude from synthesis
Layer contaminationPhase 1 loads ~/.claude/decisions/approved/ only — hard rule

References

  • templates/meeting-agenda.md — agenda format
  • templates/meeting-minutes.md — final output format
  • references/meeting-facilitation.md — conflict handling, timing, failure modes

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

Audit web applications for accessibility issues against WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA, the web accessibility standards. Get framework-specific code fixes, contrast checks, verification steps, and reports, with options for automated checks in development pipelines.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Audit a web application before release
  • Fix contrast and keyboard navigation issues
  • Prepare accessibility reports for stakeholders
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

Plan A/B tests that compare page variations, from headlines to pricing layouts. Define a hypothesis, choose success metrics, calculate sample size and duration, and prepare launch checks and results reports to support decisions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Comparing landing page headlines
  • Testing signup button changes
  • Planning pricing page experiments
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

Create paid ad headlines and body copy tailored to each platform's character limits. Use existing performance data to develop variations, explore new messaging angles, and check copy for length, quality, and potential rejection risks.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Creating Google RSA headlines
  • Writing Meta and LinkedIn ad copy
  • Developing variations of successful ads
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

Review code changes from three critical perspectives: production failures, maintainability, and security. Get a consolidated report that ranks findings by severity and provides merge guidance, helping examine assumptions that an ordinary self-review may overlook.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Reviewing a pull request before merging
  • Getting a second opinion on AI-written code
  • Checking authentication or data access code
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

aeo

免费

Audit and improve content intended for citation in AI answers. Review evidence, author information, and structure, generate revised content and structured metadata, and keep a local record of observed citations across AI services.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Audit existing articles for evidence and credibility gaps
  • Revise article structure and references for AI answers
  • Record citations observed across AI services
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

Create signed records for consequential agent actions such as deployments, deletions, and payments. Decide which actions need evidence, record the agent, action, target, and policy, then verify the resulting certificate offline to detect later changes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

  • Creating signed records for production deployments
  • Preserving evidence of deletions and payments
  • Recording access grants for later review
alirezarezvani/claude-skills2.9万2026年10月22日 更新

查看 alirezarezvani 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题