meeting-prep-kit
Skill136 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub
Personal meeting prep tool. Given a meeting (attendees, topic, desired outcome), generates a tight prep packet — 3-bullet pre-read, time-boxed agenda, your top 3 talking points, and the top 3 objections you'll face with rebuttals. Use before any meeting where you're driving an outcome — exec reviews, stakeholder pitches, scope negotiations, manager 1:1s with an ask, vendor calls.
In this repository14 other files it gives its agents.
- ai-use-case-scorerSkill
- decision-memo-builderSkill
- deck-pipelineSkill
- hypothesis-treeSkill
- issue-tree-builderSkill
- mckinsey-chartsSkill
- mckinsey-criticSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- scpr-frameworkSkill
- stakeholder-mapSkill
- storyline-builderSkill
- synthesisSkill
- top-down-memoSkill
- workshop-designerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 15
Outcome-first: Every section ladders back to one thing: what you want when you walk out.
- Distinctive: line 30
If any of these are missing, ask before drafting.
- Distinctive: line 72
Cut everything that doesn't ladder to the outcome: If a bullet doesn't serve the ask, drop it.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Meeting Prep Kit
Personal prep tool for meetings where you are driving an outcome. Not a meeting note-taker. Not a generic agenda builder. The output is for you, the person walking into the room.
Design choices (why this skill is opinionated)
- For you, not the team. Output assumes you already know the context. No "as you know" preambles.
- Outcome-first. Every section ladders back to one thing: what you want when you walk out.
- Top 3, not all 12. Talking points capped at 3. Objections capped at 3. If you can't pick 3, you don't know your ask yet.
- Speakable, not slidable. Talking points are how you'd actually say it out loud — not bullet-point soup.
Inputs the skill needs (interview if missing)
- Who's in the room? Names + roles. Power dynamics matter.
- Meeting length (15 / 30 / 60 min)
- Topic (one sentence)
- The outcome you want. Specific. "Get Sarah to approve $50K budget" — not "discuss budget."
- What they care about (their KPIs, recent context, stated priorities)
- What you have (data, alternatives, asks already discussed offline)
If any of these are missing, ask before drafting. Vague inputs = generic output.
Output format
Pre-read (3 bullets, ≤30 words each)
The minimum context anyone in the room needs before you open your mouth. Three things, no more.
Time-boxed agenda
| Time | Section | Owner |
| 0:00 | What this is + the outcome we need | You |
| 0:03 | Context (data, ≤2 min) | You |
| ... | ... | ... |
| Final 5 min | Decision + next steps | You |
Total adds up to meeting length. Decision time is always reserved at the end.
Your talking points (top 3, in order)
- Lead with the strongest — the one fact or framing they can't argue with.
- Address the elephant — name the obvious objection yourself, before they do.
- Make the ask — the one specific yes/no thing you want.
Each in plain spoken language. No corporate-speak, no buzzwords.
Anticipated objections (top 3, with rebuttals)
| Objection | Who'd raise it | Your rebuttal (1 line) |
| "We tried this in 2023 and it didn't work" | Sarah | "Different context — Q1 data shows X is now true" |
| ... | ... | ... |
Process
- Confirm inputs (interview if anything's missing).
- Reverse-engineer from the outcome. What would have to be true for them to say yes?
- Draft pre-read → agenda → talking points in that order.
- Brainstorm objections by role. What would each person in the room push back on?
- Cut everything that doesn't ladder to the outcome. If a bullet doesn't serve the ask, drop it.
Worked example
Input
- Who: Mark (VP Eng), Priya (PM lead)
- Length: 30 min
- Topic: Pushing v2 launch from 5/15 to 6/1
- Outcome: Both approve the slip by end of meeting
- They care about: Mark = team burnout, Priya = GTM commits to design partners
- I have: 400-hr capacity gap, 2 design partners' rescheduling status, Q1 burnout survey (4/10 NPS)
Output
Pre-read
- v2 scope = 1,800 hrs estimated; team capacity = 1,400 hrs (400-hr gap).
- Cutting AI-tagging closes the gap but breaks the GTM commit to 4 design partners.
- Slip to 6/1 = 17 days, keeps full scope, gives the team room (NPS hit 4/10 in Q1).
Agenda
| Time | Section | Owner |
| 0:00 | Why we're here + the ask | You |
| 0:03 | The capacity gap (data) | You |
| 0:08 | Two paths: cut vs. slip | You |
| 0:15 | Discussion | Mark, Priya |
| 0:25 | Decision + next steps | All |
Talking points
- We're 400 hrs over and the team's already at 4/10 NPS. If we ship 5/15, we either cut quality or burn the team for two more weeks. That's the actual choice.
- I know GTM committed 5/15 — I've already drafted the design-partner email and confirmed they can absorb a 17-day slip without losing the pilot.
- I'm asking for the slip to 6/1, full scope intact. Yes/no by EOD so I can lock the comms.
Objections
| Objection | Who | Rebuttal |
| "Why didn't you flag this 2 weeks ago?" | Mark | I underestimated the AI-tagging integration. Baking better estimation into the next planning cycle. |
| "Can't we just cut AI-tagging?" | Priya | We could — but it's the #1 ask from 3 of 4 design partners. Slipping costs less than cutting. |
| "What does this do to Q3?" | Mark | Q3 plan already assumed 6/1 — buffer was built in. No downstream slip. |
When to use
- Exec reviews where you're presenting
- Stakeholder pitches that need a yes
- Scope or timeline negotiations
- 1:1s with your manager where you're making an ask (raise, role change, project shift)
- Vendor calls where you're closing or evaluating
When NOT to use
- Status updates (no outcome to drive)
- Brainstorms (no ask)
- 1:1 catchups (no agenda needed)
- Recurring standups
Pairs well with
- Decision Memo Builder — if the meeting is to approve a memo, draft the memo first, prep the meeting around it
- McKinsey Critic — run your talking points through the critic before walking in
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
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.

