Meeting Summary Generator
Extract action items, decisions, and key points from meeting transcripts. Automatically routes items to tasks.md or GitHub Issues.
Usage
code
/summarize_meeting [transcript_file] /summarize_meeting .research/meetings/transcripts/2024-12-02-lab-meeting.md
When to Use
- •After running /transcribe
- •On any meeting transcript or notes
- •To process handwritten meeting notes (type them first)
Prerequisites
- •Transcript exists in
.research/meetings/transcripts/folder - •Transcript is in markdown format
Execution Steps
1. Load Transcript
Read the meeting transcript and project context:
- •
.research/meetings/transcripts/[filename].md- The transcript - •
.research/project_telos.md- Project aims (for context) - •
tasks.md- Current tasks (avoid duplicates)
2. Extract Key Information
Analyze transcript for:
- •Decisions made
- •Action items (who, what, when)
- •Questions raised
- •Key insights or ideas
- •Follow-up needed
3. Generate Meeting Summary
Append summary to transcript or create separate file:
markdown
--- # Meeting Summary ## Key Decisions <!-- Decisions that were made during the meeting --> 1. [Decision 1] - [Brief context] 2. [Decision 2] - [Brief context] ## Action Items ### Tasks (< 2 hours, single implementation) <!-- These will be added to tasks.md --> | Item | Owner | Due | Priority | |------|-------|-----|----------| | [Task description] | [Name/@you] | [Date/ASAP] | [High/Med/Low] | | [Task description] | [Name/@you] | [Date] | [Priority] | ### Issues (> 2 hours, needs tracking) <!-- These will become GitHub Issues --> 1. **[Issue title]** - Description: [What needs to be done] - Why: [Why this is needed] - Complexity: [Estimate] - Labels: [Suggested labels] 2. **[Issue title]** - Description: [Details] - Why: [Rationale] ## Key Insights <!-- Important points or ideas worth remembering --> - [Insight 1] - [Insight 2] ## Open Questions <!-- Questions that weren't resolved --> - [ ] [Question 1] - Needs: [Who/what to resolve] - [ ] [Question 2] - Needs: [Who/what to resolve] ## Follow-up Needed <!-- Things to discuss or check on later --> - [Follow-up item] ## Next Meeting <!-- If discussed --> - **Date**: [If scheduled] - **Agenda items**: [If mentioned] --- *Summary generated: [Timestamp]*
4. Task vs Issue Classification
Apply this heuristic:
| Criteria | → Task (tasks.md) | → Issue (GitHub) |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated time | < 2 hours | > 2 hours |
| Scope | Single action | Multiple steps |
| Branching | Not needed | Needs own branch |
| Comparison | No | Comparing alternatives |
| Documentation | Not needed | Should be tracked |
| Project direction | Doesn't change | May change direction |
When uncertain, ask:
code
I found this action item: "[Item description]" This could be: A) A quick task (< 2 hours, add to tasks.md) B) A larger issue (needs GitHub Issue for tracking) Which fits better? (Or provide more context)
5. Update tasks.md
Add new tasks with meeting reference:
markdown
## From Meeting: 2024-12-02-lab-meeting - [ ] [Task 1] (Due: [date]) - [ ] [Task 2] (Due: [date]) - [ ] [Task 3]
6. Create GitHub Issues
For items classified as issues, offer to create:
code
I identified 2 items that should be GitHub Issues: 1. "Compare SVM vs Random Forest for classification" - Would require testing both approaches - Results should be documented for paper 2. "Implement alternative normalization method" - Needs research into options - May change downstream pipeline Create these as GitHub Issues? (Y/n)
If yes, create issues with:
- •Clear title
- •Description from meeting context
- •Labels (if determinable)
- •Reference to meeting transcript
7. Post-Summary Actions
code
Meeting summarized! Summary added to: .research/meetings/transcripts/2024-12-02-lab-meeting.md Tasks added: 3 new items in tasks.md Issues to create: 2 (awaiting confirmation) Next steps: A) Create the GitHub Issues B) Review and prioritize new tasks C) Update project_telos.md with decisions made D) Continue with other work What would you like to do?
Example Output
markdown
# Meeting Summary ## Key Decisions 1. Use random forest as primary classifier (SVM as comparison) 2. Deadline for analysis: end of month 3. Weekly check-ins moving to Tuesdays ## Action Items ### Tasks | Item | Owner | Due | Priority | |------|-------|-----|----------| | Fix axis labels on Figure 2 | @you | Dec 4 | Low | | Send PI the draft methods section | @you | Dec 3 | High | | Update README with new instructions | @you | Dec 5 | Med | ### Issues 1. **Compare SVM vs Random Forest performance** - Description: Run both classifiers with same CV scheme, compare metrics - Why: Reviewer may ask about method choice - Complexity: ~4-6 hours - Labels: analysis, methodology ## Key Insights - PI suggested looking at recent paper by Smith et al. on normalization - Feature importance might be more interesting than just accuracy ## Open Questions - [ ] Which normalization method should we use? - Needs: literature review - [ ] Include supplementary figures in main text? - Needs: check journal guidelines
Related Skills
- •
transcribe- Generate transcript from audio - •
weekly-review- See tasks in context of weekly work - •
plan-week- Incorporate new tasks into weekly plan - •
next- Get next suggestion
Notes
- •Review summaries for accuracy - AI may misinterpret discussion
- •Action items should have clear owners
- •Link issues back to meeting for context
- •Consider who said what for attribution