Skill260 estrellas del repoactualizado 16d ago
board-meeting
Board Meeting Protocol is a structured multi-agent decision-making system designed to prevent groupthink in executive deliberation. It isolates independent contributions from company roles (CEO, CFO, CTO, CMO, COO, CHRO, CRO, CISO, CPO), applies critical analysis, synthesizes findings, and requires founder approval before extracting actionable decisions. Use this when making strategic decisions that require balanced perspective from multiple business functions without conformity bias.
Instalar en Claude Code
Copiargit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills /tmp/board-meeting && cp -r /tmp/board-meeting/c-level-advisor/board-meeting ~/.claude/skills/board-meetingDespués abre una sesión nueva de Claude Code; el skill carga automáticamente.
Definición
SKILL.md
# Board Meeting Protocol
Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions. Every phase has a purpose, a format, and rules that cannot be skipped.
## Keywords
board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives, groupthink prevention, synthesis, critic analysis, structured deliberation
---
## The 6-Phase Protocol
```
PHASE 1: Context Gathering
|
PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
|
PHASE 3: Critic Analysis (Executive Mentor)
|
PHASE 4: Synthesis (Chief of Staff)
|
PHASE 5: Founder Review (FULL STOP -- human decides)
|
PHASE 6: Decision Extraction and Logging
```
---
### Phase 1: Context Gathering
**Purpose**: Load all relevant context before anyone contributes.
```
Step 1: Load company context (if exists)
Step 2: Load decision history (Layer 2 ONLY -- NEVER raw transcripts)
Step 3: Reset session state -- no bleed from previous conversations
Step 4: Present agenda and activated roles
Step 5: Wait for founder confirmation before proceeding
```
#### Role Activation Matrix
Not all roles attend every meeting. Select based on topic:
| Topic Domain | Activate | Exclude |
|-------------|----------|---------|
| Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO | CTO (unless tech expansion) |
| Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO | CFO (unless budget question) |
| Hiring / org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO | CMO, CTO (unless their teams) |
| Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO | CTO, CHRO |
| Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO | CMO, CRO |
| Fundraising | CEO, CFO, CRO | CISO, CHRO |
| Security incident | CEO, CTO, CISO, COO | CMO, CRO |
| M&A | CEO, CFO, CTO, CHRO, COO | -- (all relevant) |
**Maximum attendees**: 6 roles per meeting. More than 6 creates noise, not insight.
---
### Phase 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
**Critical Rule**: No cross-pollination. Each advisor contributes without seeing others' outputs. This is the primary groupthink prevention mechanism.
#### Contribution Order
```
1. Research/data gathering (if needed)
2. CMO -- market perspective
3. CFO -- financial perspective
4. CEO -- strategic perspective
5. CTO -- technical perspective
6. COO -- operational perspective
7. CHRO -- people perspective
8. CRO -- revenue perspective
9. CISO -- security/risk perspective
10. CPO -- product perspective
```
#### Contribution Format (Strict)
Each advisor's contribution must follow this exact format:
```
## [ROLE] -- [DATE]
Key Points (maximum 5):
1. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
2. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
3. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
Recommendation: [Clear position statement]
Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
Key Assumption: [The one assumption this recommendation depends on]
What Would Change My Mind: [Specific condition or data point]
```
#### Reasoning Techniques by Role
| Role | Technique | How It Works |
|------|-----------|-------------|
| CEO | Tree of Thought | Explore 3 possible futures, evaluate each |
| CFO | Chain of Thought | Show the math, step by step |
| CMO | Recursion of Thought | Draft -> self-critique -> refine |
| CPO | First Principles | Decompose to fundamental user needs |
| CRO | Chain of Thought | Pipeline math must be explicit |
| COO | Step by Step | Map the operational process |
| CTO | Analyze then Act | Research -> analyze -> recommend |
| CISO | Risk-Based | Probability x Impact for every option |
| CHRO | Empathy + Data | Human impact first, then validate with metrics |
---
### Phase 3: Critic Analysis
**Purpose**: The Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously and performs adversarial review.
#### Critic Checklist
| Check | Question |
|-------|----------|
| Suspicious consensus | Where did agents agree too easily? |
| Shared assumptions | What assumptions are shared but unvalidated? |
| Missing voice | Who is not in the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?) |
| Unmentioned risk | What risk has nobody mentioned? |
| Domain bleed | Did any agent operate outside their domain? |
| Data quality | Which claims are backed by data vs. assumption? |
| Reversibility | Has anyone assessed if this decision can be undone? |
#### Critic Output Format
```
## CRITIC ANALYSIS
Consensus Assessment:
[Genuine agreement / Suspicious alignment / Split decision]
Unvalidated Assumptions:
1. [Assumption shared by multiple advisors but not verified]
2. [Assumption]
Missing Perspectives:
- [Voice or data point not represented]
Unmentioned Risks:
- [Risk nobody raised]
Domain Violations:
- [If any agent operated outside their domain]
The Uncomfortable Truth:
[The one thing nobody wants to say but needs to be said]
```
---
### Phase 4: Synthesis
**Purpose**: Chief of Staff combines all inputs into a decision-ready format.
#### Synthesis Structure
```
## BOARD MEETING SYNTHESIS
Topic: [topic]
Date: [date]
Attendees: [roles]
### Decision Required
[One sentence: what must be decided]
### Perspectives Summary
| Role | Position | Confidence | Key Concern |
|------|----------|-----------|-------------|
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |
### Where They Agree
[2-3 consensus points]
### Where They Disagree
[Named conflicts with each side's reasoning]
[What the disagreement is really about]
### Critic's View
[The uncomfortable truth from Phase 3]
### Recommended Decision
[Clear recommendation with rationale]
### Action Items (if approved)
1. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
2. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
3. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
### Your Call
[If you disagree with the recommendation, here are alternatives:]
Option A: [description] -- Trade-off: [what you gain/loDel mismo repositorio
changelog-managerSubagent
>-
code-reviewerSubagent
>-
doc-generatorSubagent
>-
git-workflowSubagent
>-
qa-engineerSubagent
>-
security-auditorSubagent
>-
a11y-auditSlash Command
Run an accessibility audit on the current project for WCAG compliance.
code-to-prdSlash Command
Reverse-engineer a Product Requirements Document from existing code.