# SKILL: Turn messy meeting notes into a RAG status report

> **Guided-build reference.** This is the worked example everyone follows live in Block 2. If you build only one Skill today, build this one. It shows all three habits at once: describe the output first ([Way #1](../../ways-of-working.md)), strip the data before you paste ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)), and catch the one thing the AI got wrong ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)).

---

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

Turn raw, half-typed sync notes into a consistent Red/Amber/Green status report a stakeholder can read in 30 seconds. Use it every week, the moment the call ends, before the programme report is due.

It replaces 20 minutes of re-reading scrappy notes and trying to remember who agreed to what.

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

- **Input 1:** the raw meeting notes (typos and all - the AI copes).
- **Input 2:** the project name you want at the top (a safe codename, not the real one).

> **PRIVACY CHECK** ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)): before you paste, do these swaps. Treat the prompt like a postcard.
>
> | In the notes | Replace with | Why |
> |---|---|---|
> | "Maria Gonzalez" | **Person A** | Real name - no PII in the chatbot |
> | "Brightwave Ltd" | **Vendor 1** | Names a real supplier relationship |
> | "480k (confidential)" | **remove the whole line** | Marked confidential - leave it out |
> | "dave" | **Person B** (only if you genuinely know it's a colleague) | Real name |
>
> Rule of thumb: real names → Person A/B, suppliers → Vendor 1, anything tagged *confidential* → delete it. When in doubt, leave it out.

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

A four-section status report:

| Section | Shape |
|---|---|
| **Summary** | 2–3 plain sentences a director can skim |
| **Key decisions** | bullet list, decisions only (not discussion) |
| **Risks (RAG)** | table: Risk \| Rating (🔴 Red / 🟠 Amber / 🟢 Green) |
| **Actions** | table: Action \| Owner \| Due |

Max one page. Neutral, factual tone. **Where the notes don't say who owns something, the Owner must read `TBC` - never a guessed name.**

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

```
You are helping me turn raw weekly meeting notes into a status report
for [PROJECT CODENAME].

Produce exactly four sections:
1. Summary - 2 to 3 sentences, plain English.
2. Key decisions - bullets, decisions only.
3. Risks - a table with columns: Risk | Rating. Rate each Red, Amber,
   or Green. Red = blocked or slipping; Amber = at risk; Green = on track.
4. Actions - a table with columns: Action | Owner | Due.

Rules:
- If the notes do not clearly state an owner or a due date, write "TBC".
  Do NOT guess, infer, or assign anyone you are not told about.
- If the notes mention an unresolved or "parked" question, list it as a
  risk or open action - do not silently drop it.
- Keep it to one page. Neutral, factual tone. No filler.

Notes:
[PASTE ANONYMISED NOTES HERE]
```

The anti-guessing line in **Rules** is the whole point - it's what makes the AI write `TBC` instead of confidently inventing an owner.

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

> **Input (anonymised - note Maria → Person A, Brightwave → Vendor 1, budget line deleted):**
>
> *Project Helix weekly sync. Launch pencilled end of month, looking shaky - Person A flagged Vendor 1 integration slipping, second week running, thinks we push. Agreed: push launch one week, confirm with stakeholders. QA sign-off NOT done - blocker, someone to chase QA lead this week. Data migration over weekend went ok, no rollback. Open question: legal review for new terms copy - nobody sure, parked. Person A to send revised plan. dave picking up vendor chase i think? not 100% sure who owns that. Marketing wants assets Thurs, haven't told them about the slip. Someone said analytics dashboard showing wrong numbers again, ran out of time.*
>
> **Output it produced:**
>
> ### Status report - Project Helix
>
> **Summary**
> Launch is slipping and the team has agreed to push it by one week, pending stakeholder confirmation. QA sign-off is the live blocker. Data migration completed successfully over the weekend.
>
> **Key decisions**
> - Push launch by one week (to be confirmed with stakeholders).
> - No rollback needed after the weekend data migration.
>
> **Risks**
>
> | Risk | Rating |
> |---|---|
> | Vendor 1 integration slipping - second week running | 🔴 Red |
> | QA sign-off not done - blocker | 🔴 Red |
> | Marketing not yet told about the slip; assets expected Thursday | 🟠 Amber |
> | Legal review for new terms copy - unresolved, parked | 🟠 Amber |
> | Analytics dashboard reporting wrong numbers - unverified | 🟠 Amber |
>
> **Actions**
>
> | Action | Owner | Due |
> |---|---|---|
> | Confirm one-week slip with stakeholders | TBC | This week |
> | Chase QA lead for sign-off | TBC | This week |
> | Send revised plan | Person A | TBC |
> | Chase Vendor 1 integration | **TBC** | TBC |
> | Tell Marketing about the slip | TBC | Before Thursday |
>
> **The catch ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)):** the vendor-chase owner came back as **TBC** - exactly right, because the notes only said *"dave picking up the vendor chase i think? not 100% sure."* A lazier prompt drops the anti-guessing rule and the AI writes "Dave" with full confidence. That fake certainty is the trap. Also notice the **analytics dashboard** issue survived into the risk list - a quick "summarise this" prompt usually loses it because it was the throwaway last line. Two things to verify by eye every week: **owners** and **anything that nearly got dropped.**

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

- **Privacy** ([Way #3](../../ways-of-working.md)): never paste real names, supplier names, or any figure marked *confidential* (the 480k line). Anonymise first, every time.
- **Human check** ([Way #2](../../ways-of-working.md)): before you send it on, read the **Owner** column and the **Risks** list. AI invents owners and quietly loses the last bullet of messy notes. You sign it - so you own those two checks.
- **Limits:** this summarises what's *in* the notes. It can't tell you whether a Red should actually be a different colour, or fill gaps the meeting never resolved. Garbage in, confident garbage out.

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

- **Owner:** *(your name)*
- **Last updated:** *(date)*
- **Lives in:** team SharePoint → "Programme reporting" → *Skills* (so the next PM reuses it instead of rebuilding it - [Way #5](../../ways-of-working.md)).

---

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