# SKILL: Summarise several documents into a one-page brief

> A worked Skill from Innovation Day. Spec-first output ([Way #1](../../ways-of-working.md)), anonymise before pasting ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)), and - the headline beat - make the AI *surface a contradiction* rather than smooth it over, then have a human sign it off ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)).

---

## 1. Goal - what this Skill does, and when to use it

Take a small stack of related documents - a policy note, a vendor update, a risk extract - and fuse them into one short brief that a decision-maker can read in a minute. Use it before a steering meeting, or whenever you've been handed three documents that "you should be across."

It replaces reading all three, then trying to hold the differences between them in your head.

## 2. Inputs - what you paste in for it to work

- **Input 1:** the documents (here: a policy note, a vendor update, a risk-log extract).
- **Input 2:** a one-line label for each, so the AI can attribute points to a source.

> **PRIVACY CHECK** ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)): internal docs carry names and supplier identities. Swap them before pasting.
>
> | In the docs | Replace with |
> |---|---|
> | "Sandra Whitfield" (Programme Director) | **Person A** |
> | "Brightwave Ltd" (the integration vendor) | **Vendor 1** |
>
> The dates, the risk IDs (R-12, R-15…) and the substance all stay - they're what the brief is *about*. Only the identifying names go.

## 3. Output - what "good" looks like *(write this BEFORE the prompt)*

A one-page brief in five blocks:

| Block | Shape |
|---|---|
| **TL;DR** | 2–3 sentences - the situation in plain English |
| **Key points** | bullets, **each attributed to its source** (e.g. *[Policy note]*) |
| **Conflicts / gaps** | where the documents **disagree** or leave a hole - stated plainly, not reconciled |
| **Recommended action** | one clear next step |
| **Open questions** | the decisions a human still has to make |

The non-negotiable: if two sources **disagree**, that disagreement goes in **Conflicts / gaps** and **Open questions** - it is *not* averaged, ignored, or smoothed into one confident statement.

## 4. Instructions / Prompt - the exact text to paste

```
You are helping me combine several documents into a one-page brief.

Produce exactly five blocks:
1. TL;DR - 2 to 3 sentences, plain English.
2. Key points - bullets. Attribute each to its source in [square brackets].
3. Conflicts / gaps - where the documents DISAGREE with each other or leave
   something unanswered. State the disagreement plainly with both sides.
4. Recommended action - one clear next step.
5. Open questions - decisions a human still needs to make.

Critical rules:
- If two documents give different dates, numbers, or facts, DO NOT pick one
  and DO NOT average them. Surface the conflict in blocks 3 and 5, quoting
  both sources.
- Do not invent agreement that isn't in the text. If something is unresolved,
  say so.
- Attribute every key point to its source document.

Documents:
[DOC 1 LABEL]: [PASTE]
[DOC 2 LABEL]: [PASTE]
[DOC 3 LABEL]: [PASTE]
```

## 5. Worked Example - one real run, anonymised

> **Input (three docs, names anonymised):**
>
> - **[Policy note]** - *Customer Portal migration approved by Person A. Go-live fixed at **1 June 2026**, will not move; Marketing has committed this to customers. Legacy portal off at go-live, no parallel running.*
> - **[Vendor update, from Vendor 1]** - *End-to-end integration testing **cannot begin until 2 June**, expected to take five working days → realistic readiness **9 June 2026**. Strongly advises against switching off the legacy system before testing passes; recommends a short parallel-running window.*
> - **[Risk extract]** - *R-15 Integration testing timeline, Likelihood High / Impact High, Owner TBC: vendor readiness not confirmed against the published go-live - **potential clash, needs escalation.***
>
> **Output it produced:**
>
> ### Brief - Customer Portal migration
>
> **TL;DR**
> Go-live is formally fixed at 1 June and already committed to customers, but the vendor cannot be integration-ready until 9 June. The two dates are in direct conflict and the risk log already flags it as needing escalation.
>
> **Key points**
> - Go-live fixed at 1 June 2026; legacy portal switched off, no parallel running. *[Policy note]*
> - Date already communicated externally by Marketing. *[Policy note]*
> - Integration testing can't start until 2 June; realistic readiness 9 June 2026. *[Vendor update]*
> - Vendor advises against switching off legacy before testing passes; suggests short parallel run. *[Vendor update]*
> - R-15: integration-testing timeline is High/High risk, owner TBC, potential clash needing escalation. *[Risk extract]*
>
> **Conflicts / gaps**
> - **Date conflict:** Policy note says go-live is **fixed at 1 June and will not move**; vendor says readiness is **9 June** at the earliest. These cannot both hold. *[Policy note]* vs *[Vendor update]*
> - The policy mandates **no parallel running**; the vendor **recommends a parallel window**. Directly opposed.
> - R-15 owner is **TBC** - no one yet owns resolving the clash. *[Risk extract]*
>
> **Recommended action**
> Escalate the 1-June-vs-9-June clash to the programme decision-maker now, with the two options on the table: hold the date and accept go-live without passed integration testing, or move the date / run legacy in parallel.
>
> **Open questions**
> - **Does go-live hold at 1 June, or move to ~9 June to match vendor readiness?** *(the core decision)*
> - Will a short parallel-running window be allowed, against the current "no parallel running" policy?
> - Who owns R-15 and the escalation? (Currently TBC.)
> - Given Marketing has committed 1 June externally, what's the customer-comms plan if the date moves?
>
> **The catch ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)):** the failure mode is *false harmony*. Ask a chatbot to "summarise these three documents" and it will often produce a tidy line like *"Go-live is 1 June; the vendor is supporting the cutover"* - quietly picking the policy date, dropping the 9-June readiness, and burying the single most important fact in the stack. The prompt's "if two documents disagree, surface it - do not pick or average" rule is what forces the contradiction into **Conflicts** and **Open questions** instead. When you check a multi-doc summary, the one thing to verify is: **did it surface the disagreements, or smooth them away?**

## 6. Guardrails - how to stay safe and sane

- **Privacy** ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)): swap names and supplier identities (Person A, Vendor 1) before pasting. Keep the substance.
- **Human check** ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)): read **Conflicts** and **Open questions** first. A summary that reads suspiciously clean is the warning sign - go back to the source and confirm the disagreements survived. You sign the brief; you own that it's honest about what's unresolved.
- **Limits:** this surfaces conflicts - it does not *resolve* them. It can't tell you which date wins; that's a human decision with context the documents don't contain.

## 7. Reuse notes - so it isn't lost

- **Owner:** *(your name)*
- **Last updated:** *(date)*
- **Lives in:** programme shared space → *Skills* folder. Reuse it for every "here are three documents, get across them" moment before a steering meeting - [Way #5](../../ways-of-working.md).

---

*Built at Innovation Day. The five ways of working: [ways-of-working.md](../../ways-of-working.md).*