agentleFS
bks-labbks-lab/open-bridge/skills/debrief/SKILL.md

debrief

Skill13 starsChanged 13 days agoMITView on GitHub

Meeting and transcript processing: classifies meeting type, name corrections, extracts insights, generates protocols, proposes tasks. Full 8-phase flow (GitHub reconciliation, distribution email) or quick 5-phase. Trigger: "/debrief", "/debrief {path}", "/debrief --quick", "/debrief --all", "/debrief --date YYYY-MM-DD", "meeting minutes".

30 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use brief, review and 1 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • AnthropicSkill

    brief

    Generate contextual briefings for legal work — daily summary, topic research, or incident response. Use when starting your day and need a scan of legal-relevant items across email, calendar, and contracts, when researching a specific legal question across internal sources, or when a developing situation (data breach, litigation threat, regulatory inquiry) needs rapid context.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • SentrySkill

    review

    Fixture review skill.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

  • MicrosoftSkill

    handoff

    Compact the current conversation into a handoff document for another agent to pick up.

    Also in 3 projects that use this

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 3 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 27 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 3

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read every workflow/meetings/*.yaml (skip _-prefixed files: those are the template and schema).

    line 79
  2. Very specific:

    No match, or no followup_skill: continue with the normal flow, silently.

    line 118
  3. Distinctive:

    If EITHER check finds something, say one line and continue — never block, never prompt:

    line 166
  4. Very specific:

    When the evidence is a registry entry, name the sibling and be honest about its age — no active liveness probe is run (probing would turn a …

    line 173
  5. Distinctive:

    If NEITHER check finds anything → stay silent, exactly as today.

    line 179

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 27 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Debrief

Process a meeting transcript. Read the referenced file ONLY when triggered.

Sources and flow variants

Sources scanned: legacy work.imports_dir plus doc_sensor.scan_paths entries with kind: recordings (catches PARA tree 2_AREAS/Import_Audio/ after the PARA migration). Already-archived basenames in work/archive/days/ are skipped as redundant.

Flow variants:

  • Full 8-phase flow (references/full-workflow.md) with GitHub task-reconciliation (references/task-reconciliation.md) and optional distribution email (references/distribution-email.md) to meeting participants.
  • Quick 5-phase flow (references/quick-workflow.md).
  • Batch flags: --all processes every unprocessed transcript in imports/; --date YYYY-MM-DD processes only that day. (Both formerly lived in /process-meeting, now merged here.)

Decision Tree

User wants to...
├── Full processing (8 phases)              → Read references/full-workflow.md
├── Quick processing (5 phases)             → Read references/quick-workflow.md
├── Classify a transcript only              → Read references/classification.md
├── Apply name corrections                  → Read references/classification.md (§ Name Corrections)
├── Generate a protocol from notes          → Read references/protocol-templates.md
├── Match actions to existing issues        → Read references/task-reconciliation.md
│                                             (called from Phase 5)
├── Pull calendar/chat context for transcript → Read references/full-workflow.md § Phase 1.5
│                                             (driven by integrations.meeting_context.*)
├── Send meeting summary email              → Read references/distribution-email.md
│                                             (called from Phase 7, after updates + protocol)
└── Questions about debrief                 → Answer from this file

Phase order (hard rule)

  1. Find → 1.5. Context Lookup (only if any integrations.meeting_context.* block in bridge-config.yaml is enabled with consumers: [debrief]) → 2. Classify + corrections → 3. Extract →
  2. (n/a — merged into 3) → 5. Task Reconciliation + Execute → 6. Protocol → 7. Distribution Email → 8. Work-log + Archive

Updates before protocol (so wiki has real URLs). Protocol before email (so email links to real issue updates AND the written wiki page). Email before archive (so transcript is still next to the workflow).

A hand-off to a successor skill happens after Phase 5, never earlier. The series is usually recognisable at Phase 1, and handing over there feels efficient. It is not: phases 1.5, 2 and 5 are then simply never run by anyone. The successor's follow-up starts further downstream and assumes they are done. See § Recurring series for the positive definition and the hand-over list.

Recurring series: recognise and hand off (do not make the user guess)

A transcript that belongs to a recurring meeting series does not end with a protocol; the series has its own cycle (a run sheet before, keyword memory after, board operations, a distribution draft, next week's skeleton). Debrief does not own any of that and must not reimplement it. It recognises the series and names the successor, so the user triggers one thing instead of four.

Purely config-driven, so this stays a generic core skill:

  1. Read every workflow/meetings/*.yaml (skip _-prefixed files: those are the template and schema).
  2. Match the meeting folder name against each series' folder_match (a regex with a named date group). folder_match wins over folder_pattern; real folder names diverge, and a prefix guess picks the wrong series.
  3. On a match, read that series' followup_skill. Finish phases 1.5 through 5 first, then hand over. The point is defined positively, as "after 5", not as "somewhere before 6":

    This transcript belongs to {display_name} ({date}). That series' cycle is owned by {followup_skill}: it fills the run sheet, writes the summary, the wiki protocol, the board operations and the distribution draft, and seeds the next meeting.

    Done here and handed over:

    • classification: {type}, {n} speakers
    • name corrections: {n} applied, name_corrections: applied set in the transcript frontmatter
    • extraction: {n} action items
    • task reconciliation: {n} matched to existing work, {n} newly created ({slugs})

    Hand over now? [y] · [n] continue with the generic flow

    Every line of that list is a claim, so every line is checked before it is printed. A hand-over that says "name corrections applied" when they were not is worse than no hand-over: the successor believes it and never looks.

    Why the point is defined positively. In the case behind this rule, the hand-over was offered right after Phase 1, because the series was already recognisable. Phases 1.5, 2 and 5 were then run by nobody: debrief was out, and the successor's follow-up begins at "fill in the keywords" and only assumes classification, name corrections and reconciliation happened. Eighteen name corrections (one colleague's first name misheard three times, which would have reached a distribution mail) and two due work items were caught by the user, not by the flow. The failure is silent by construction: an uncorrected transcript reads perfectly fluently, and a missing work item is only noticed by someone looking for it.

  4. No match, or no followup_skill: continue with the normal flow, silently. Most meetings are not part of a series and a prompt would be noise.

Debrief never names a series or a skill in its own text. It reads the key.

Flow selector

FlagFlowWhen to use
(none)Full 7-phaseMeetings with stakeholders, decisions, action items. Protocol required.
--quickQuick 5-phaseLoose notes, personal debriefs, no formal protocol needed.
{path}Full or quickPath to transcript file. Flow selection via other flags.

Both flows are checkpoint-gated — user confirms at classification and task creation. Neither flow writes to GitHub, wiki, or archive without explicit [y].

Transcription pipeline (optional)

Debrief consumes transcripts; it does not transcribe. A transcription worker is an optional integration — never a dependency:

  • No worker configured (the default): transcribe with any tool and drop the transcript (or the audio + transcript pair, same basename) into imports — the Find phase picks it up. Nothing else is required.
  • Worker configured (integrations.transcription.enabled: true in bridge-config.yaml): Phase 0 pulls finished transcripts via the sync_script before scanning (pull), and the Find phase may hand un-transcribed audio back to the worker (push).
  • Fail-soft (hard rule): worker unreachable (sync script exits non-zero) → proceed with whatever is already in imports. A missing or broken worker must never block a debrief run.
  • Silent vs. surfaced — these are not the same absence, do not conflate them:
    • integrations.transcription.enabled: false → skip silently. A deliberate no stays a no; re-asking is nagging.
    • The integrations.transcription block absent entirely → not a no, just no answer yet. Run TWO cheap, read-only checks before choosing silence (neither is a scan — both read something already on disk for exactly this purpose):

      1. local — does infra/transcriptions/topology.yaml resolve a worker (mode: remote + worker.host, or mode: local), or does a sync_script exist at the conventional path (skills/meeting-transcription/scripts/debrief_sync.sh)?
      2. cross-instance — does ~/.bridge-capabilities/transcription.yaml carry an entry (see docs/capability-registry.md)? This is a sibling Bridge instance's opted-in worker on the same machine — the case that motivated this split (see issue #105/#107): a fully working worker, invisible because it was never registered here. If EITHER check finds something, say one line and continue — never block, never prompt:

      Note: a transcription pipeline appears to exist on this machine but isn't registered for this bridge (integrations.transcription missing from bridge-config.yaml). /debrief continues without it — /bridge-onboard --add transcription to wire it up.

      When the evidence is a registry entry, name the sibling and be honest about its age — no active liveness probe is run (probing would turn a read into a scan, which the registry is explicitly designed to avoid): an entry with registered_at older than ~90 days gets "last confirmed {date} by {registered_by} — verify it's still running" rather than being asserted as current fact. If NEITHER check finds anything → stay silent, exactly as today. Most users have no worker; noise is worse than silence.

The full worker contract (config block, sync-script verbs, failure semantics, output format) lives in docs/transcription-worker.md.

Integration points

  • Transcription worker (optional, bring-your-own): see § Transcription pipeline above + docs/transcription-worker.md. A full reference implementation ships as skills/meeting-transcription/.
  • process-transcription (global, if installed): owns Org-specific participant lists and wiki routing — debrief defers to it.
  • github-projects-manager: governance + execution for GitHub issues created from extracted action items.
  • workflow/projects/{slug}.yaml: source of truth for issue field values.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.