أداة استخراج سجل قرارات الاجتماع: تحويل النص غير المنظم إلى توضيح للمسؤوليات (من يملك ماذا)
Why this prompt matters
Teams routinely walk out of the same meeting with three different understandings of what was decided, and only discover the mismatch when someone ships the wrong thing two sprints later. A vague 'we'll sort it out' that gets written into a recap as a firm decision is one of the most common sources of cross-functional rework — and it is far cheaper to catch the ambiguity in the first hour after the meeting than to unwind a sprint's worth of misdirected work.
What we use it for
A product manager just left a 45-minute cross-functional planning meeting between engineering, design, and marketing about a delayed Q3 feature launch, and needs to send a decision recap within the hour — before people's memories of who-agreed-to-what start to diverge — but manually re-listening to the recording or notes to reconstruct exactly what was agreed would take 20+ minutes and still risk missing a contradiction between two speakers.
Prompt
Act as an experienced chief-of-staff or operations lead who has run hundreds of cross-functional meetings and knows exactly how a vague "we'll figure it out" turns into three teams building three different things a week later. CONTEXT: - Meeting transcript or raw notes: [MEETING TRANSCRIPT OR NOTES] - Participants and their roles: [MEETING PARTICIPANTS AND ROLES] - Meeting purpose/agenda: [MEETING PURPOSE] TASK: Extract a clean decision log from the raw meeting content. Distinguish clearly between what was actually decided and what was merely discussed. CONSTRAINTS: - Only list something as a "Decision Made" if the transcript shows clear agreement — do not invent an owner or deadline if none was actually stated - If a decision sounded final but had no named owner or deadline, flag it under Ambiguity Flags instead of the Decisions table — do not guess - If two participants appeared to agree on different versions of the same decision, call out the contradiction explicitly - Do not pad the output with meeting-process commentary (no "the meeting opened with..." narration) — go straight to substance - Keep each decision to one line; put nuance and caveats in a separate notes column, not the decision text itself OUTPUT FORMAT: 1. Decisions Made (table: Decision | Owner | Deadline | Confidence — high/medium/low based on how explicit the transcript was) 2. Open Items Requiring Follow-up (things discussed but not resolved, with who needs to weigh in next) 3. Ambiguity Flags (things that sounded decided but had no clear owner/deadline, or where speakers seemed to disagree) 4. Suggested One-Line Recap (a single Slack-ready message summarizing the meeting's outcome for people who weren't there)
Result
1. Decisions Made
| Decision | Owner | Deadline | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q3 launch date moves from Aug 15 to Sep 5 | Priya (PM) | Confirmed in meeting | High |
| Onboarding flow ships without the referral-code step for launch; referral code becomes a fast-follow | Dan (Eng Lead) | Fast-follow by Sep 19 | High |
| Marketing holds the press release until engineering confirms the new date is locked | Sam (Marketing) | Confirmation needed by Aug 29 | Medium — Sam agreed but didn't explicitly confirm the Aug 29 checkpoint date, inferred from context |
2. Open Items Requiring Follow-up
- Design has not confirmed whether the simplified onboarding flow needs new user-research validation before the Sep 5 date — Priya to follow up with Design lead (Wren) directly, not resolved in this meeting
- Budget for the delayed launch's paid marketing push was mentioned as "probably fine" by Sam but not confirmed against actual Q3 budget — needs Finance sign-off before marketing commits spend
3. Ambiguity Flags
- Dan said engineering "should be able to" hit Sep 5, which is weaker language than a firm commitment — this is recorded as a decision in the log above but the confidence is medium-high, not certain; recommend a written confirmation from Dan before treating Sep 5 as locked
- Priya and Sam appeared to agree the referral code delay was fine, but Sam's tone ("I guess that works") suggests lower conviction than Priya's framing implied — worth a direct check-in with Sam before external commitments reference the fast-follow date
4. Suggested One-Line Recap
"Q3 launch moves to Sep 5 without referral codes (fast-follow by Sep 19); marketing holds the press release until engineering reconfirms the date by Aug 29 — still need Design's read on onboarding research and Finance sign-off on the delayed launch's ad budget."
كل فريق عاش هذه التجربة: اجتماع تخطيطي مدته 45 دقيقة ينتهي، يهز الجميع رؤوسهم موافقين، وبعد أسبوعين يتبين أن ثلاثة أشخاص غادروا الاجتماع بثلاثة تفسيرات مختلفة لما تم الاتفاق عليه فعلياً. يُكتب البريد الإلكتروني الموجز من الذاكرة، ويتحول تلخيص شخص واثق لعبارة "سنحل الأمر" إلى التزام صارم مكتوب، وعندما يلاحظ أحدهم عدم التطابق، يكون قد تم توجيه قدر كبير من العمل في الاتجاه الخاطئ.
صُمم هذا الموجه لسد هذه الفجوة في الساعة الأولى، وليس بعد فوات الأوان. فهو يأخذ نصاً خاماً لاجتماع أو ملاحظات وينتج سجل قرارات يرسم خطاً فاصلاً بين ما تم اتخاذه فعلياً كقرار وما بدا وكأنه قرار فقط.
لماذا الإشارة إلى الغموض أهم من قائمة القرارات
معظم أدوات تلخيص الاجتماعات تُنتج بسهولة قائمة "قرارات" نظيفة — لكن القائمة النظيفة هي المشكلة بعينها عندما يكون نصفها لم يُحسم فعلياً. هذا الموجه مُوجه صراحةً بعدم اختراع مسؤول أو موعد نهائي عندما لا يذكر النص ذلك، وبتحديد اللغة غير الحازمة ("يجب أن يكون قادراً على"، "أعتقد أن هذا مقبول") على أنها ذات ثقة منخفضة حتى لو كانت اتفاقاً من الناحية الفنية. هذا التمييز هو القيمة الكاملة للموجه: فهو مصمم لإظهار القرارين أو الثلاثة في كل اجتماع تبدو محسومة في الغرفة ولكنها ستتفكك بمجرد أن يتصرف شخص بناءً عليها دون وجود مسؤول حقيقي.
كيفية الاستخدام
الصق نص الاجتماع أو ملاحظاتك الأولية مع ذكر من كان في الغرفة والغرض من الاجتماع. قم بتشغيله فور انتهاء الاجتماع، بينما لا يزال السياق جديداً بما يكفي للتحقق من المخرجات مقابل ذاكرتك — فالإشارات إلى الغموض تكون أكثر فائدة كموجه لرسالة متابعة مدتها دقيقتان ("مرحباً، هل يمكنك تأكيد أنك فعلاً المسؤول عن X بحلول Y")، وليس كسجل نهائي بحد ذاتها.