CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

board-meeting

Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.

68

Quality

82%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

The risk profile of this skill

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Board Meeting Protocol

Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions.

Keywords

board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, /cs:boardroom, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives

Invoke

/cs:boardroom [topic] — e.g. /cs:boardroom Should we expand to Spain in Q3?


The 6-Phase Protocol

PHASE 1: Context Gathering

  1. Load ~/.claude/company-context.md
  2. Load Layer 2 approved decisions from ~/.claude/decisions/approved/ (Layer 2 ONLY — never raw transcripts)
  3. Reset session state — no bleed from previous conversations
  4. Present agenda + activated roles → wait for founder confirmation

Chief of Staff selects relevant roles based on topic (not all 14 every time):

TopicActivate
Market expansionCEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO
Product directionCEO, CPO, CTO, CMO
Hiring/orgCEO, CHRO, CFO, COO (+ VPE for eng hiring)
PricingCMO, CFO, CRO, CPO
TechnologyCTO, CPO, CFO, CISO
Contracts / term sheets / legal exposureGC, CEO, CFO
Data strategy / training-data rightsCDO, CAIO, GC, CISO
AI strategy / model selection / AI riskCAIO, CTO, CDO, CFO
Retention / churn / customer successCCO, CRO, CPO
Eng delivery / DORA / team structureVPE, CTO, CHRO, CFO

PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)

No cross-pollination. Each agent runs before seeing others' outputs.

Order: Research (if needed) → CMO → CFO → CEO → CTO → COO → CHRO → CRO → CISO → CPO → GC → CDO → CAIO → CCO → VPE (activated roles only)

Reasoning techniques: CEO: Tree of Thought (3 futures) | CFO: Chain of Thought (show the math) | CMO: Recursion of Thought (draft→critique→refine) | CPO: First Principles | CRO: Chain of Thought (pipeline math) | COO: Step by Step (process map) | CTO: ReAct (research→analyze→act) | CISO: Risk-Based (P×I) | CHRO: Empathy + Data | GC: Risk-Based (clause exposure) | CDO: Decision-Driven (what decision does this data drive) | CAIO: Eval-Demanding (no eval, no ship) | CCO: Retention-Obsessed (GRR over NRR) | VPE: Throughput-First (cycle-time math)

Contribution format (max 5 key points, self-verified):

## [ROLE] — [DATE]

Key points (max 5):
• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴
• [Finding] — [VERIFIED/ASSUMED] — 🟢/🟡/🔴

Recommendation: [clear position]
Confidence: High / Medium / Low
Source: [where the data came from]
What would change my mind: [specific condition]

Each agent self-verifies before contributing: source attribution, assumption audit, confidence scoring. No untagged claims.


PHASE 3: Critic Analysis

Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously. Role: adversarial reviewer, not synthesizer.

Checklist:

  • Where did agents agree too easily? (suspicious consensus = red flag)
  • What assumptions are shared but unvalidated?
  • Who is missing from the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?)
  • What risk has nobody mentioned?
  • Which agent operated outside their domain?

PHASE 4: Synthesis

Chief of Staff delivers using the Board Meeting Output format (defined in ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md):

  • Decision Required (one sentence)
  • Perspectives (one line per contributing role)
  • Where They Agree / Where They Disagree
  • Critic's View (the uncomfortable truth)
  • Recommended Decision + Action Items (owners, deadlines)
  • Your Call (options if founder disagrees)

PHASE 5: Human in the Loop ⏸️

Full stop. Wait for the founder.

⏸️ FOUNDER REVIEW — [Paste synthesis]

Options: ✅ Approve | ✏️ Modify | ❌ Reject | ❓ Ask follow-up

Rules:

  • User corrections OVERRIDE agent proposals. No pushback. No "but the CFO said..."
  • 30-min inactivity → auto-close as "pending review"
  • Reopen any time with /cs:boardroom resume

PHASE 6: Decision Extraction

After founder approval:

  • Layer 1: Write full transcript → ~/.claude/decisions/raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md
  • Layer 2: Write approved decision record → ~/.claude/decisions/approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md and append to the index ~/.claude/decisions/approved/decisions.md
  • Mark rejected proposals [DO_NOT_RESURFACE]
  • Confirm to founder with count of decisions logged, actions tracked, flags added

Memory Structure

Uses the canonical two-layer decision memory (see ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md → "Decision Memory (Canonical Layout)"):

~/.claude/decisions/
├── raw/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md        # Layer 1 — full transcripts (never auto-loaded)
├── raw/archive/YYYY/               # Raw transcripts after 90 days
├── approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md   # Layer 2 — founder-approved records (Phase 1 loads these)
└── approved/decisions.md           # Layer 2 index — append-only

Future meetings load Layer 2 only. Never Layer 1. This prevents hallucinated consensus.

Migration: a legacy memory/board-meetings/ folder may exist from earlier versions; read it for history but write new transcripts and decisions to ~/.claude/decisions/.


Failure Mode Quick Reference

FailureFix
Groupthink (all agree)Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against"
Analysis paralysisCap at 5 points; force recommendation even with Low confidence
BikesheddingLog as async action item; return to main agenda
Role bleed (CFO making product calls)Critic flags; exclude from synthesis
Layer contaminationPhase 1 loads ~/.claude/decisions/approved/ only — hard rule

References

  • templates/meeting-agenda.md — agenda format
  • templates/meeting-minutes.md — final output format
  • references/meeting-facilitation.md — conflict handling, timing, failure modes
Repository
alirezarezvani/claude-skills
Last updated
First committed

Also appears in

alirezarezvani/claude-skills
In sync

since Aug 28, 2026

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.