Skip to main content
ClaudeWave
ES, Spanish
Skill755 estrellas del repoactualizado 8d ago

foundation-meeting-agenda

This Claude Code skill generates shareable meeting agendas for ten meeting types (standup, planning, review, decision-making, brainstorm, 1-on-1, stakeholder-review, project-kickoff, working-session, exec-briefing). Use it when running meetings with more than three attendees or exceeding thirty minutes to establish clear expectations about discussion topics, topic owners, time allocation, and desired outcomes before the meeting begins.

Instalar en Claude Code
Copiar
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/product-on-purpose/pm-skills /tmp/foundation-meeting-agenda && cp -r /tmp/foundation-meeting-agenda/skills/foundation-meeting-agenda ~/.claude/skills/foundation-meeting-agenda
Después abre una sesión nueva de Claude Code; el skill carga automáticamente.

SKILL.md

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

A meeting agenda is the attendee-facing structural document that sets expectations before a meeting. It answers "what will we discuss, who owns each topic, how will we spend the time, and what does done look like?" Distinct from a meeting brief, which is the user's private strategic prep; the agenda is shared with participants and focused on structure and flow.

This skill belongs to the Meeting Skills Family. It conforms to the [Meeting Skills Family Contract](../../docs/reference/skill-families/meeting-skills-contract.md), which defines shared frontmatter, file naming, the go-mode behavioral pattern, and universal output requirements across all meeting skills.

## When to Use

- Running or chairing a cross-functional working session, project kickoff, stakeholder review, or decision meeting
- Any meeting with more than three attendees or more than thirty minutes
- Recurring meeting where a rolling structure (1-on-1, team sync) needs fresh framing each time
- Mid-initiative alignment moment where explicit desired outcomes prevent drift

## When NOT to Use

- The user's preparation is private and tactical (positioning, stakeholder reads, asks). Use `foundation-meeting-brief` instead.
- The meeting has already happened. Use `foundation-meeting-recap` for post-meeting summarization.
- The user wants to communicate outcomes to non-attendees. Use `foundation-stakeholder-update` after the meeting.

## Zero-friction execution

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

1. Read all provided inputs (topic, any referenced files, attendee list, constraints)
2. Run inference on missing values (meeting type from topic keywords, duration default, objective from topic phrasing, attendee roles from context)
3. Present a brief inference summary and accept one-word `go` or corrections
4. Produce the agenda

If invoked with `--go`, skip the inference summary and produce output directly using defaults (duration 30 min, meeting type `other`, and so on). If the user provides all values upfront, no checkpoint appears.

Blocking questions are used only when inference confidence is actively low on a load-bearing input and no reasonable default exists. This should be rare.

## Anti-meeting check

This skill opens with an explicit question: "Does this need to be a meeting, or could it be handled async?"

**v1.1.0: the check now requires a positive synchronous-value statement.** The meeting passes the check only when at least one of these is named:

- **Tradeoff to discuss**. multiple options, uncertain preference
- **Conflict to resolve**. named stakeholders disagreeing
- **Co-creation**. shared whiteboarding or document-writing in the meeting
- **Relationship-building**. first-time stakeholder meeting, mutual calibration
- **Blocker escalation**. time-sensitive unblocking

If none apply, the skill recommends the async alternative (written update, doc review, Slack poll) and produces a short one-page "how to handle this async" framing instead of an agenda.

The v1.0.0 version of this check ("single-owner decision with no tradeoffs", "pure information broadcast", "status-only sync with >5 people") was bypassed too easily. users would stay at five attendees or add "decision" to the topic. The stricter v1.1.0 biases toward async; users can still override.

This check is shared with `foundation-meeting-brief` and not run by the post-meeting skills (recap, synthesize, stakeholder-update).

## Instructions

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

1. **Run anti-meeting check**
   Apply the trigger patterns above. If the user's objective matches, propose the async alternative and ask for override. Only proceed to step 2 on explicit override.

2. **Parse and load inputs**
   Read the topic or purpose. Load all `@file` references provided. Extract any attendee list, time constraints, or linked documents.

3. **Infer missing values**
   Apply these inference rules:

   | Value | Inferred from | Default |
   |-------|---------------|---------|
   | Meeting type | Topic keywords, attendee seniority mix | `other` (low confidence) |
   | Duration | Explicit in topic doc (rare); meeting-type-specific default when type is inferred at medium+ confidence | v1.1.0: type-specific (see family contract). 30 min only for `other`, `1-on-1`, `exec-briefing`, `customer-call`. Kickoff = 60, working-session = 60, decision-making = 45, etc. |
   | Objective | Topic phrasing | Infer; surface in summary |
   | Attendee RACI | Seniority, topic ownership cues | Flag all inferences |
   | Desired outcomes | Objective plus meeting type heuristics | Offer strawman |

   **Load-bearing inference gates** (v1.1.0): when attendee RACI or desired outcomes are inferred below-high confidence, flag in the go-mode summary with `⚠`. See family contract "Zero-friction execution" section.

4. **Present go-mode inference summary**
   Show the inferred values with confidence markers. Accept `go` to proceed, or corrections to revise. Re-run inference after any correction and present the summary again.

5. **Design the time-boxed topic list**
   Apply the meeting-type variant (see below). Size topic times so their sum equals the meeting duration. If the topic list overflows the available time, flag it explicitly and ask for reconciliation (do not silently trim).

   Each topic must have:
   - Type tag: `Discussion | Decision | Information | Working`
   - Owner (name or team)
   - Goal (what done looks like)
   - Time allocation
   - Pre-read link if any

6. **Specify attendee prep**
   List required prep with links and estimated prep time. Add recommended context for attendees who want deeper background. Add "come ready to" expectations that force clarity on what each attendee contributes.

7. **Add parking lot and logistics placeholders**
   Parking lot is a placeholder for off-topic items raised during the m
chainSlash Command

Run an ad-hoc ordered chain of pm-skills with shared context (ephemeral; routes to the pm-workflow-orchestrator)

define-hypothesisSkill

Defines a testable hypothesis with clear success metrics and a validation approach. Use when forming assumptions to test or aligning a team on what success looks like, before any experiment is designed. To design the A/B test or experiment that will validate the hypothesis, use measure-experiment-design.

define-jtbd-canvasSkill

Creates a Jobs to be Done canvas capturing the functional, emotional, and social dimensions of a customer job. Use when deeply understanding customer motivations, designing for jobs, or reframing product positioning.

define-opportunity-treeSkill

Creates an opportunity solution tree connecting a desired outcome to customer opportunities and candidate solutions, preventing solution-first jumps in continuous discovery. Use when structuring scattered feature ideas or communicating how the roadmap traces to outcomes. For ranking an existing flat list of candidates, use define-prioritization-framework instead; this skill discovers the list, it does not score one.

define-prioritization-frameworkSkill

Run applicable prioritization frameworks (RICE, ICE, MoSCoW, Weighted Scoring, Kano) against a list of features or initiatives. Produces a comparison table showing where rankings agree and diverge across frameworks, and an executive summary with recommendation. Framework applicability is filtered by data availability; Kano requires customer research. Refuses to fabricate scores; produces an estimation scaffold when input data is missing.

define-problem-statementSkill

Creates a clear problem framing document with user impact, business context, and success criteria. Use when starting a new initiative, realigning a drifted project, or communicating up to leadership.

deliver-acceptance-criteriaSkill

Generates structured Given/When/Then acceptance criteria for a user story or feature slice, covering the happy path, key failure scenarios, and non-functional expectations in testable form. Use when turning requirements into verifiable scenarios for engineering handoff and QA sign-off. For a dedicated catalog of boundary conditions, error states, and recovery paths across a feature, use deliver-edge-cases; to write the stories themselves, use deliver-user-stories.

deliver-edge-casesSkill

Documents edge cases, error states, boundary conditions, race conditions, and recovery paths for a feature - the systematic catalog of what can go wrong and the failure modes to design for. Use during specification to map the failure surface and ensure comprehensive coverage, or during QA planning to identify boundary and limit scenarios to test. Distinct from deliver-acceptance-criteria, which writes story-level Given/When/Then checks; this skill produces the whole-feature edge-case catalog.