board-meeting

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
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:board, 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:board, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives

## Invoke
`/cs:board [topic]` — e.g. `/cs:board Should we expand to Spain in Q3?`

---

## The 6-Phase Protocol

### PHASE 1: Context Gathering
1. Load `memory/company-context.md`
2. Load `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md` **(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 9 every time):
| Topic | Activate |
|-------|----------|
| Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO |
| Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO |
| Hiring/org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO |
| Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO |
| Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO |

---

### 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

**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

**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:board resume`

---

### PHASE 6: Decision Extraction
After founder approval:
- **Layer 1:** Write full transcript → `memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md`
- **Layer 2:** Append approved decisions → `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md`
- Mark rejected proposals `[DO_NOT_RESURFACE]`
- Confirm to founder with count of decisions logged, actions tracked, flags added

---

## Memory Structure
```
memory/board-meetings/
├── decisions.md          # Layer 2 — founder-approved only (Phase 1 loads this)
├── YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md     # Layer 1 — full transcripts (never auto-loaded)
└── archive/YYYY/         # Raw transcripts after 90 days
```

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

---

## 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 decisions.md 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


---

## Referenced Files

> The following files are referenced in this skill and included for context.

### templates/meeting-agenda.md

```markdown
# Board Meeting Agenda Template

Use this to structure a board meeting before invoking `/cs:board`.
Paste it into the conversation or save it as `memory/board-meetings/agenda-YYYY-MM-DD.md`.

---

## Board Meeting — [DATE]

**Convened by:** [Founder name]
**Facilitator:** Chief of Staff (Leo)
**Duration:** [estimated, e.g., 45–90 min]
**Status:** Draft / Confirmed

---

## Standing Items (always included)

| Item | Owner | Time |
|------|-------|------|
| Layer 2 decisions review (what changed since last meeting) | Chief of Staff | 5 min |
| Open action items from last meeting | All | 10 min |
| Blockers requiring founder decision | All | 5 min |

---

## Agenda Items

### Item 1: [Title]
**Type:** Decision required / Exploration / Update
**Lead role(s):** [e.g., CEO + CFO]
**Context:** [1-2 sentences on why this is on the agenda now]
**Decision needed:** [What specifically must be decided, or what question must be answered]
**Success criteria:** [How will we know this agenda item is resolved?]
**Relevant past decisions:** [Reference any Layer 2 entries]
**Time box:** [e.g., 20 min]

---

### Item 2: [Title]
**Type:** Decision required / Exploration / Update
**Lead role(s):**
**Context:**
**Decision needed:**
**Success criteria:**
**Relevant past decisions:**
**Time box:**

---

### Item 3: [Title]
**Type:** Decision required / Exploration / Update
**Lead role(s):**
**Context:**
**Decision needed:**
**Success criteria:**
**Relevant past decisions:**
**Time box:**

---

## Out of Scope (explicitly excluded)

List topics that might come up but are NOT on today's agenda:
- [Topic] — defer to [date or next meeting]
- [Topic] — owner to handle async

---

## Pre-Read

Materials all participants should review before the meeting:
- [ ] `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md` (Chief of Staff loads automatically)
- [ ] [Link or filename]
- [ ] [Link or filename]

---

## Notes

[Any special instructions, constraints, or context for this meeting]

```

### templates/meeting-minutes.md

```markdown
# Board Meeting Minutes Template

This is the Layer 2 output — the founder-approved record of what was decided.
Written by Chief of Staff after Phase 5 (founder approval).
Appended to `memory/board-meetings/decisions.md`.

Do NOT include raw agent debate here. That lives in `YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md` (Layer 1).

---

## Board Meeting — [DATE]

**Agenda:** [Topic or meeting title]
**Participants (roles activated):** [e.g., CEO, CFO, CMO, COO, Executive Mentor]
**Facilitator:** Chief of Staff
**Status:** ✅ Approved by founder / ⏸️ Pending review

---

## Decisions Made

### Decision 1: [Title]
**Agenda item:** [Item this decision resolves]
**Decision:** [Exactly what was decided — one clear statement]
**Rationale:** [Why this was chosen over alternatives, in 1-3 sentences]
**Owner:** [Who is accountable for execution]
**Deadline:** [Date]
**Review date:** [When to check progress]
**User override:** [If founder overrode agent consensus — what and why. Leave blank if not applicable.]

---

### Decision 2: [Title]
**Agenda item:**
**Decision:**
**Rationale:**
**Owner:**
**Deadline:**
**Review date:**
**User override:**

---

## Action Items

| # | Action | Owner | Deadline | Review Date | Status |
|---|--------|-------|----------|-------------|--------|
| 1 | [action] | [name/role] | [date] | [date] | Open |
| 2 | [action] | [name/role] | [date] | [date] | Open |
| 3 | [action] | [name/role] | [date] | [date] | Open |

---

## Explicitly Rejected Proposals

These were considered and rejected. Do not resurface without new information.

| Proposal | Rejected by | Reason | Flag |
|----------|-------------|--------|------|
| [Proposal text] | Founder | [reason] | [DO_NOT_RESURFACE] |
| [Proposal text] | Consensus | [reason] | [DO_NOT_RESURFACE] |

---

## Open Questions (unresolved, deferred)

These were not resolved in this meeting. They carry forward.

1. [Question] — Owner: [who will research] — Due: [date]
2. [Question] — Owner: — Due:

---

## Risk Register Updates

| Risk | Probability | Impact | Owner | Mitigation | Status |
|------|-------------|--------|-------|-----------|--------|
| [risk] | H/M/L | H/M/L | [name] | [action] | Open |

---

## Next Meeting

**Suggested date:** [DATE]
**Trigger items:** [Action items with review dates that will need board discussion]
**Pre-read:** [What to prepare]

---

*Minutes approved by: [Founder name] on [DATE]*
*Raw transcript: `memory/board-meetings/[DATE]-raw.md`*

```

### references/meeting-facilitation.md

```markdown
# Meeting Facilitation Guide

Operational playbook for running board meetings using the 6-phase protocol.
Reference this when things go sideways — and they will.

---

## Keeping Phase 2 Contributions Focused

**The problem:** Agents with deep domain knowledge tend to over-contribute. An unconstrained CFO can produce 1,500 words on a single agenda item. This kills the meeting.

**The rules:**
- **Hard cap: 5 key points per role.** If a role produces more than 5, Chief of Staff trims to the 5 most material.
- **Every point must include a recommendation or stance.** Observations without positions are filler.
- **No hedging language.** "It depends" is not a key point. "We should do X if Y, Z if not Y" is.
- **Confidence rating required.** Forces the agent to be honest about what they actually know.
- **"What would change my mind"** — this is the most important line in the contribution. It forces falsifiability.

**How to enforce:**
```
Chief of Staff instruction to each role:
"You have 5 key points maximum. Each must include a clear stance.
End with your recommendation and what would change your mind.
Do not read other agents' contributions before writing yours."
```

**If a contribution runs long:**
- Trim to the 5 highest-signal points
- Preserve the recommendation and confidence rating
- Flag in the raw transcript: "[Trimmed for meeting — full version in raw log]"

---

## Handling Role Conflicts in Phase 3

**What the Executive Mentor is for:** Not harmony. Not consensus. Productive friction.

**Common conflict types:**

### 1. Data conflict (two agents cite contradictory numbers)
- Flag both numbers explicitly
- Do NOT pick a winner — that's the founder's job
- Ask: "CFO says CAC is $2,400. CRO says $1,800. These can't both be right. Which dataset are you using?"
- Action item: Assign data reconciliation to one owner before next meeting

### 2. Priority conflict (two agents want different things first)
- Surface the underlying assumption difference
- Example: "CMO wants to invest in brand. CFO wants to cut burn. The real question is: do we believe revenue will grow 40% next quarter?"
- Frame as a bet, not a fight

### 3. Role conflict (agent operating outside their lane)
- CFO making product calls → flag and exclude from synthesis
- CMO commenting on architecture → flag and exclude
- The Executive Mentor notes: "[ROLE] contribution on [topic] is outside domain. Excluded from synthesis. Refer to [correct role]."
- This is not an error. It's expected. Executives have opinions on everything. Only domain-relevant contributions count.

### 4. False consensus (everyone agrees but nobody has evidence)
- This is the most dangerous failure mode
- Symptom: All Phase 2 contributions say "yes" with high confidence
- Executive Mentor response: "Unanimous agreement on a hard question is a red flag. What evidence does each of you have? Or are you reasoning from the same assumption?"
- Force each agreeing agent to state their independent evidence

---

## When to Extend vs Cut Short a Meeting

**Extend when:**
- A genuine new risk surfaces in Phase 3 that wasn't in the agenda
- The founder asks a question that requires re-running Phase 2 for a new angle
- A data conflict is discovered that changes the decision space entirely
- The action items from synthesis are unclear or unowned

**How to extend:** Add a new mini-Phase 2 with only the relevant roles for the new question. Don't restart the full meeting.

**Cut short when:**
- The founder has already reached a decision before Phase 4 — capture it, log it, move on
- The agenda item is resolved in Phase 2 without genuine conflict — skip Phase 3, go straight to synthesis
- It's a pure update meeting with no decisions required — skip Phases 2-4, go straight to action items

**Never cut short:**
- Phase 5 (founder review) — always required, always explicit
- Phase 6 (decision extraction) — always required, even for small decisions

---

## Handling Founder Disagreement with All Agents

This happens. The founder has context agents don't.

**Protocol:**
1. Acknowledge explicitly: "You're overriding the consensus position."
2. Ask: "What do you know that the agents didn't factor in?" (Not to challenge — to capture.)
3. Log the override in Layer 2 with full context:
   ```
   User Override: Founder rejected [consensus position] because [reason].
   Decision: [founder's actual decision]
   Agent recommendation: [what they said] — DO NOT RESURFACE without new data
   ```
4. Never push back on a founder override. Document it. Move on.
5. If the same override happens 3+ times, flag a pattern: "You've overridden the CFO on burn rate three meetings in a row. Would you like to update the financial constraints in company-context.md?"

**What NOT to do:**
- Don't say "but the CFO said..."
- Don't re-argue on behalf of any agent
- Don't note it as a "controversial" decision in the minutes — it's just the decision

---

## Common Failure Modes

### Groupthink
**Symptom:** All agents produce similar recommendations with high confidence.
**Cause:** Agents are inadvertently reading each other's outputs (Phase 2 isolation violated), or company-context.md contains implicit bias toward one direction.
**Fix:** Re-run Phase 2 with explicit isolation. Ask: "Give me the strongest argument AGAINST this direction."

### Analysis Paralysis
**Symptom:** Phase 2 produces comprehensive analysis but no clear recommendation from any role.
**Cause:** Agents are hedging. Usually happens on genuinely hard questions.
**Fix:** Force the issue. "I need a recommendation, not an analysis. If you had to bet the company on one direction, what would it be? Confidence can be Low."

### Bikeshedding
**Symptom:** 30+ minutes spent on a detail that doesn't matter to the core decision.
**Cause:** An easy-to-understand sub-problem attracts disproportionate attention.
**Example:** Debating button color on a pricing page instead of the pricing strategy.
**Fix:** Chief of Staff intervenes: "This is a sub-decision. I'm logging it as a separate action item for async resolution. Back to [main agenda item]."

### Scope Creep
**Symptom:** New agenda items keep appearing mid-meeting.
**Cause:** Meeting surfaces real issues that feel urgent.
**Fix:** New items go on a "parking lot" list. Addressed after the current agenda is complete or in the next meeting.
```
🅿️ PARKING LOT
- [Item 1] — added by [role], will address [when]
- [Item 2]
```

### Layer Contamination
**Symptom:** Future meeting references a rejected proposal or a debate that was never approved.
**Cause:** Phase 1 accidentally loaded a raw transcript instead of decisions.md.
**Fix:** Hard rule in Phase 1: load decisions.md (Layer 2) ONLY. Never load raw transcripts. If raw context is needed, founder explicitly requests it.

### Decision Amnesia
**Symptom:** Same question debated again in a later meeting.
**Cause:** Layer 2 decisions.md not consulted in Phase 1, or entry was too vague.
**Fix:** Phase 1 always surfaces relevant past decisions. If a question was already decided, Chief of Staff surfaces it: "We addressed this on [DATE]. Decision was [X]. Do you want to reopen it?"

### Role Fatigue
**Symptom:** Later agents in Phase 2 (CHRO, CRO) produce weaker contributions.
**Cause:** Context window pressure. Agents at the end of a long meeting have less capacity.
**Fix:** For meetings with 7+ roles, split into two batches. First batch: strategic roles (CEO, CFO, CMO). Second batch: operational roles (COO, CHRO, CRO). Run Executive Mentor after all contributions.

---

## Meeting Health Metrics

After each board meeting, score it:

| Metric | Good | Bad |
|--------|------|-----|
| Action items produced | 3–7 | 0 or >10 |
| Decisions with clear owners | 100% | < 80% |
| Unresolved open questions | 1–3 | >5 |
| Founder overrides | 0–2 | >5 (suggests context mismatch) |
| Roles activated | 3–6 | All 9 (too many = noise) |
| Phase 2 conflicts surfaced | At least 1 | 0 (groupthink risk) |

Track these in `memory/board-meetings/meeting-health.md` over time. Pattern: if action items consistently exceed 8, meetings are too infrequent. If conflicts are consistently 0, isolation is broken.

```



---

## Skill Companion Files

> Additional files collected from the skill directory layout.

### _meta.json

```json
{
  "owner": "alirezarezvani",
  "slug": "board-meeting",
  "displayName": "Board Meeting",
  "latest": {
    "version": "1.0.0",
    "publishedAt": 1772750815950,
    "commit": "https://github.com/openclaw/skills/commit/653d46bdc862d85d05137f26f36b934b42121c18"
  },
  "history": []
}

```