board-meeting
$
npx mdskill add alirezarezvani/claude-skills/board-meetingStructured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/board-meetingView on GitHub ↗
--- name: "board-meeting" description: "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." license: MIT metadata: version: 1.0.0 author: Alireza Rezvani category: c-level domain: board-protocol updated: 2026-03-05 frameworks: 6-phase-board, two-layer-memory, independent-contributions --- # 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): | Topic | Activate | |-------|----------| | Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO | | Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO | | Hiring/org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO (+ VPE for eng hiring) | | Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO | | Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO | | Contracts / term sheets / legal exposure | GC, CEO, CFO | | Data strategy / training-data rights | CDO, CAIO, GC, CISO | | AI strategy / model selection / AI risk | CAIO, CTO, CDO, CFO | | Retention / churn / customer success | CCO, CRO, CPO | | Eng delivery / DORA / team structure | VPE, 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 | Failure | Fix | |---------|-----| | Groupthink (all agree) | Re-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against" | | Analysis paralysis | Cap at 5 points; force recommendation even with Low confidence | | Bikeshedding | Log as async action item; return to main agenda | | Role bleed (CFO making product calls) | Critic flags; exclude from synthesis | | Layer contamination | Phase 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
More from alirezarezvani/claude-skills
- a11y-auditAccessibility audit skill for scanning, fixing, and verifying WCAG 2.2 Level A and AA compliance across React, Next.js, Vue, Angular, Svelte, and plain HTML codebases. Use when auditing accessibility, fixing a11y violations, checking color contrast, generating compliance reports, or integrating accessibility checks into CI/CD pipelines.
- ab-test-setupWhen the user wants to plan, design, or implement an A/B test or experiment. Also use when the user mentions "A/B test," "split test," "experiment," "test this change," "variant copy," "multivariate test," "hypothesis," "conversion experiment," "statistical significance," or "test this." For tracking implementation, see analytics-tracking.
- ad-creativeWhen the user needs to generate, iterate, or scale ad creative for paid advertising. Use when they say 'write ad copy,' 'generate headlines,' 'create ad variations,' 'bulk creative,' 'iterate on ads,' 'ad copy validation,' 'RSA headlines,' 'Meta ad copy,' 'LinkedIn ad,' or 'creative testing.' This is pure creative production — distinct from paid-ads (campaign strategy). Use ad-creative when you need the copy, not the campaign plan.
- adversarial-reviewerAdversarial code review that breaks the self-review monoculture. Use when you want a genuinely critical review of recent changes, before merging a PR, or when you suspect Claude is being too agreeable about code quality. Forces perspective shifts through hostile reviewer personas that catch blind spots the author's mental model shares with the reviewer.
- aeoAnswer Engine Optimization (AEO) skill — optimize content to be cited by AI language models (ChatGPT, Perplexity, Claude, Gemini, Mistral) as authoritative sources. Distinct from SEO — AEO optimizes for citation in LLM-generated responses, not search rankings. Use when planning content for AI-first search audiences, auditing existing content for E-E-A-T signals, tracking which pages get cited by which LLMs, or building a citation-friendly content strategy. Triggers — 'AEO audit', 'optimize for ChatGPT', 'get cited by Perplexity', 'LLM citation strategy', 'answer engine optimization', 'content for AI search', 'E-E-A-T audit'. Output is a markdown audit report (default) or JSON for pipeline integration. Stdlib-only Python tools.
- agent-designerUse when the user asks to design a multi-agent system, pick an orchestration pattern (supervisor/swarm/pipeline), generate tool schemas for agents, or evaluate agent execution logs for cost, latency, and failure bottlenecks. Examples: 'design an agent architecture for research automation', 'generate Anthropic tool schemas from these tool descriptions', 'analyze these agent run logs for bottlenecks'. NOT for Claude Code workflow files (use workflow-builder) or single-agent prompt design (use agent-workflow-designer).
- agent-protocolInter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.
- agent-workflow-designerDesign production-grade multi-agent workflows with clear pattern choice (sequential, parallel, hierarchical), handoff contracts, failure handling, and cost/context controls. Use when architecting a multi-step agent pipeline, choosing between single-agent vs multi-agent approaches, or refactoring an LLM workflow that suffers from context bloat or unreliable handoffs.
- agenthubMulti-agent collaboration plugin that spawns N parallel subagents competing on the same task via git worktree isolation. Agents work independently, results are evaluated by metric or LLM judge, and the best branch is merged. Use when: user wants multiple approaches tried in parallel — code optimization, content variation, research exploration, or any task that benefits from parallel competition. Requires: a git repo.
- agile-product-ownerAgile product ownership for backlog management and sprint execution. Covers user story writing, acceptance criteria, sprint planning, and velocity tracking. Use when writing user stories, creating acceptance criteria, planning sprints, estimating story points, breaking down epics, or prioritizing the backlog.