brief/skills/internal-meeting-brief/SKILL.md

---
name: internal-meeting-brief
description: Generate an MPM-branded internal meeting briefing document as a single-file HTML artifact — covers internal planning sessions, executive leadership meetings, and project team meetings (e.g. APTA planning, status reviews, internal design discussions). Produces agenda-mode (pre-meeting prep, pulling the previous meeting's transcript) or recap-mode (post-meeting summary, pulling the current meeting's transcript). Always use this skill when the user asks to "brief this meeting," "recap the meeting," "prep me for [meeting]," "write up the [meeting name] meeting," or names an internal MPM meeting/topic and wants it documented or summarized — even if they don't say "internal-meeting-brief" by name or don't mention CoWork/Brief explicitly. Part of the CW-027 Brief plugin family; see git.mpm.to/mpm/brief.
---

# internal-meeting-brief

Generates a single self-contained HTML briefing document for an internal MPM meeting,
built on Brief's shared MPM-branded component library. Does the work of assembling the
brief itself — pulling from connected tools — rather than requiring the person to
hand-supply meeting notes.

Read `assets/brief-components.css` and `references/section-structure.md` before
generating any brief. The CSS is the canonical, only source of Brief's visual
language — never re-derive it inline. The section-structure doc is the fixed-vs-dynamic
contract for what this skill's output actually contains.

## Prerequisites

This skill uses, but does not own, the following connected tools — confirm they're
reachable before starting, and degrade gracefully (see Hard Rules) if one isn't.

**Meeting record — the source varies. Ask, don't assume Plaud.** Recap mode needs
*some* record of what was discussed; which kind depends on how MPM actually recorded
that particular meeting, which isn't fixed. In rough order of how much structure they
give you, and check whichever plausibly applies rather than defaulting to the first one
tried before:
- **Plaud** — if used, the official `Plaud` connector (`get_current_user`,
  `list_files`, `get_file`, `get_transcript`, `get_note`) — **not** the deprecated
  `Plaud MCP` connector. Resolve a recording's `file_id` via
  `list_files(query=...)` — never assume a Plaud web-app URL's slug is the API
  `file_id` directly; the real id carries an `of_` prefix the web URL doesn't show.
  `get_transcript` paginates (`next_cursor`) — loop until null. `get_note` returns the
  AI summary/action-items tab separately — worth pulling alongside the transcript.
- **Google Meet transcript** — typically lands as a Google Doc in Drive (often in a
  "Meet Recordings" folder or attached to the Calendar event) — search Drive/Calendar,
  don't assume it doesn't exist just because Plaud has nothing.
- **Teams transcript**, or any other recording tool MPM starts using — same principle:
  ask where it lives before concluding no record exists.
- **No transcript at all** — perfectly valid. Fall back to whatever does exist for that
  meeting: the person's own notes, a task registry, prior emails/Chat about it. State
  plainly in Notes & Flags that no transcript was available and the brief is built from
  secondary sources — this is the never-fabricate rule applying to the *source*, not
  just the content.

If it's not obvious which source applies, **ask the person** rather than trying each
connector in sequence and treating empty results as "nothing exists here." An empty
result from one source is not evidence the meeting has no record at all.

Other tools this skill uses:
- **Odoo** (MCP) — linked Project/tasks, Sales/Purchase Orders, Knowledge Base,
  Helpdesk tickets, and contacts (customer/partner/sales-rep records tied to an SO/PO)
- **Google Workspace** (MCP) — Gmail, Google Chat, Drive, Sheets
- **Google Drive** — the topic's continuity folder (`_topic-state.md` + brief history
  + `Meeting Briefs/` + `Meeting Transcripts/`)
- **MPM Technical Reference System** — a Drive-based product/technical knowledge
  registry (131 entity files as of 2026-09-22: brand voice, platform/software,
  display technologies, products, engineering, concepts, proof/evidence). Read
  `_INDEX.md` first — it's the routing table — then only the specific files a claim
  actually needs. This is where part numbers, model codes, and product/technical
  claims get verified; it is not this skill's content to maintain, only to reference.

If any of these fail outright (not just "returns nothing," but errors or times out),
say so plainly in the generated brief's Notes & Flags section rather than silently
omitting that source. See "Known limitation" below for a real, currently-open example.

## Workflow

### 1. Resolve the topic
Every brief belongs to a project/topic, not just a meeting instance. Ask which
topic/project this meeting is about if it isn't obvious from context. Search Google
Drive for an existing topic folder (naming pattern: `<Topic Name> — Meeting Briefs`)
before creating a new one. If an Odoo Project already exists for this topic and has an
attached Drive folder, use that folder instead of creating a parallel one.

### 2. Read (or create) the continuity manifest — ALWAYS, before anything else
Open `_topic-state.md` in the topic folder. **This is not optional and does not need
to be asked about — do it automatically, every run, as the first real action.** If it
doesn't exist, this is the topic's first run: create it immediately with the schema
below, then expect a fuller interview in the following steps since there's no history
to draw on yet.

**Schema — refined 2026-09-22 against a real production run** (Oshkosh GO Transit
kickoff), which improved on the original design in ways worth keeping permanently:
- **Confidence tags** on every factual claim: `verified` (checked against a source
  document — an SO, a PO, an Odoo record), `stated` (said by someone in the meeting or
  by the person running the brief, not independently confirmed), `open` (unresolved —
  including outright conflicts between two sources, e.g. an address that differs
  between a PO and its matching SO). Do not present a `stated` fact with the same
  confidence as a `verified` one.
- **Folder layout** section at the top of the manifest, documenting what's actually in
  the topic folder (including subfolders Brief didn't create, like a pre-existing
  `Financial/` folder) — self-documenting, so opening the manifest alone orients
  someone to the whole folder.
- **Links** table: linked Odoo Project ID, SO, PO, Chat Space, Plaud recording
  pattern, relevant Gmail thread(s), and — critically — the actual **people**
  resolved from those records (customer contact, reseller/partner contact, MPM sales
  rep), each with role, email, phone, and its confidence tag. See step 4.
- **Decisions ledger** and **Open items ledger** as two separate tables. Open items
  get sequential numbers (1, 2, 3...) for things actually assigned/committed in the
  meeting, and a separate `P`-prefixed series (P1, P2...) for things *suggested*
  during the meeting but not yet formally assigned — don't conflate a live suggestion
  with a committed action item.
- **Findings / flags** section for meta-observations worth carrying forward that
  don't fit the ledgers — e.g. "this topic's Plaud AI summary is unreliable, build
  from the raw transcript" or a specific diarization error spotted at a timestamp.
  This is where operational lessons about the data sources themselves get recorded,
  not just facts about the topic.
- **Related documents** table for cross-referencing other MPM document types about
  the same real-world topic (pre-mortems, BAI build docs, a technical reference
  registry, etc. — see CW-027 Concept.md's rewrap-vs-harvest principle; don't merge
  their content into this ledger, just reference them).
- **Brief history** log (date/type/mode/file link(s) — both HTML and PDF if a PDF
  exists).

Append to this file; don't rewrite history. On every subsequent run, read the whole
thing before doing anything else — it's the difference between starting fresh and
starting from zero.

### 3. Determine mode: Agenda or Recap
Agenda mode (pre-meeting prep) pulls the *previous* meeting's record and any updates
since. Recap mode (post-meeting) pulls the *current* meeting's record. Ask if not
specified by the request. "Record" — see Prerequisites above — is whatever source
actually applies for that meeting, not necessarily Plaud.

### 4. Capture and normalize attendees — and resolve real contact info, always
- **First run for this topic:** ask who's attending / who attended.
- **Recurring topic:** pre-fill from the manifest's last attendee list and ask "same as
  last time, or any changes?" — not a blank-slate interview.
- **Recap mode with a transcript available (any source):** prefer *actual* attendance
  from the transcript's speaker attribution over the pre-meeting expected list —
  someone who showed up unexpectedly and spoke shouldn't be treated as absent.
- **Normalize into two groups:**
  - Internal MPM attendees — record by name for the brief; no further resolution
    needed (no external allowlist implications for this brief type).
  - External attendees — cross-reference against Odoo to resolve real contact info
    (email, phone, title, company), not just a confirmed spelling of a name. **This is
    a standing step, not something to be asked to do:** if the topic has a linked SO
    or PO, pull the Odoo contacts tied to those records first (customer contact,
    reseller/partner PM, sales rep) — this is usually faster and more accurate than a
    generic contact search, and surfaces exactly who the real counterparts are even
    if they weren't in the meeting. If someone's name as heard doesn't match Odoo
    cleanly (a misheard surname, a title mismatch), flag it in Findings/flags as
    `open` rather than silently picking one.
- **If a speaker's diarization didn't resolve to a name:** render the literal
  transcript label ("Speaker 1," "Speaker 3"). Do not guess a name from context, even
  when a guess feels obvious. Flag unresolved speakers in the Notes & Flags section.

### 5. Pull data, scoped to what this brief type actually needs
Not a monolithic "pull everything," but scope by what the *topic* actually is, not a
fixed list per brief type:
- The meeting record (per mode, above) — the primary source, whichever tool it
  actually lives in
- Gmail / Google Chat: updates since the manifest's last-meeting date, scoped by
  project/topic keywords, never a blanket search
- Odoo Project tasks, if a linked project exists (expect this to be sparse or absent —
  PM-tool adoption is inconsistent; fall back to a spreadsheet task registry if the
  topic uses one, learned via a one-time interview on first use and stored in the
  manifest, never assumed to follow a universal schema)
- **Sales Order / Purchase Order — pull whenever the topic is a real customer or
  reseller engagement, not just for vendor-partner-brief/status-update-brief.**
  Correction from initial design: an *internal* kickoff meeting about a *real sale*
  (an internal-meeting-brief, by audience) still needs the SO/PO — that's where the
  scope, the customer, the reseller/partner, and the real contacts actually live. The
  dividing line is the topic's nature (commercial engagement vs. purely internal
  process work like a booth build), not the brief type's name. Search Odoo by
  customer/topic name if not already linked in the manifest.
- **Part numbers / product/technical claims — check them against the MPM Technical
  Reference System** (a Drive-based registry; read `_INDEX.md` first, then
  `_RULES.md` for the confidence-tag contract, then only the specific entity files
  the topic needs — e.g. `30-products/model-code-grammar.md` for verifying a model
  number's structure, or the relevant `30-products/*` file for a named display
  family). Don't guess at whether a model number or part number is right — verify it
  here, or flag it `open` if the registry doesn't resolve it (e.g. a variant with no
  assigned code yet). This registry is a genuine dependency, not this skill's own
  content to maintain — see Dependencies.

Helpdesk ticket review is still a deliberate, manual exception (see below) — not
pulled automatically regardless of topic type.

### 6. Synthesize into the section structure
Follow `references/section-structure.md` exactly: six fixed sections in order, dynamic
sections only where the meeting's actual content has a structure that calls for one.
Real, verified content over generic summary — carry forward specific facts (names,
dates, exact technical decisions), not vague paraphrase.

### 7. Render
Single self-contained HTML file. Include `assets/brief-components.css` inline (don't
link out to it — the brief must survive as a standalone file). Include: sticky jump-nav,
a working light/dark toggle (`data-theme` attribute, default light), and the
`@media print` rules from the shared CSS (forces light, hides nav/toggle, avoids
awkward page breaks). Small brief-specific CSS additions beyond the shared stylesheet
(e.g. a status-source badge, a role subtitle under an attendee's name) are fine —
append them, don't fork the canonical rules to get the same effect.

**Footer confidentiality note — standard for this brief type.** internal-meeting-brief
is, by definition, internal content. End the footer with an explicit statement of that
(e.g. "Internal. Do not forward to [named external party]." when the topic has one) —
validated in the Oshkosh brief, where this genuinely matters: the brief discusses a
reseller/customer deal in more candid terms than anyone would want forwarded to that
customer.

### 8. Archive — the brief, the transcript, and the manifest update
- Save the generated HTML into the topic folder's `Meeting Briefs/` subfolder
  (`YYYY-MM-DD <Meeting> - <Mode> Brief.html`). If a PDF was also generated, save it
  alongside with the matching name.
- **Save a plain-text copy of the meeting record into a `Meeting Transcripts/`
  subfolder** (`YYYY-MM-DD <source name> - Transcript.txt`) — a standing step, not
  something to be asked for. This matters beyond convenience: it makes the topic
  resilient to the source connector being unavailable later (Plaud specifically has
  had real, live connector problems this project — see Resolved limitation below), and
  it's the raw material a future brief needs if it has to re-derive something the
  original brief didn't capture.
- Update `_topic-state.md`: append to the brief-history log (both file links), update
  the decisions and open-items ledgers (carry forward anything still open, close
  anything resolved, add new items with the correct sequential/P-prefixed numbering —
  see step 2), update the attendee list and any newly-resolved contact info, update
  Findings/flags with anything learned this run, update last-meeting date.

### 9. Present
Hand the file to the person. Don't silently skip presenting it even if archived — the
person needs to actually see and review it, not just trust it happened.

## Hard rules

- **Never fabricate.** No matching Plaud recording, no linked Odoo data, an empty
  Gmail/Chat scan — say so plainly in Notes & Flags. A brief with visible gaps is
  correct; a brief with invented content to fill them is not.
- **Bounded queries only.** Gmail/Chat scans are scoped by project keyword + date
  window from the manifest. Never an open-ended search.
- **No live publishing yet.** This skill produces a local file only. Hosting/publishing
  (a shareable link, external access control) is CW-029 (Brief Server) — deliberately
  separate, deliberately not built yet. Don't attempt to stand up delivery
  infrastructure as part of running this skill.

## First real invocation — findings (2026-09-22)

The first time this skill ran from an actual installed invocation (not Claude manually
walking through this file) — a recap brief for an Oshkosh GO Transit internal kickoff.
Real, valuable findings, each fixed in this revision:

1. **Print CSS bug — fixed.** `section{break-inside:avoid-page;}` and whole-table
   `break-inside:avoid` in the shared stylesheet's `@media print` block caused a
   14-page, mostly-blank PDF: any section taller than the remaining space on a page
   got pushed whole to the next page, leaving the gap behind blank. Fixed in
   `assets/brief-components.css`: sections can split across pages now; only the small
   atomic elements (cards, individual table rows) avoid splitting, with table headers
   repeating on each new page. A correctly-generated PDF from the same content came out
   6 clean pages.
2. **SO/PO lookup was wrongly scoped out by default — fixed.** Original design said
   Sales/Purchase Orders "aren't typically relevant" to this brief type. Wrong: an
   internal kickoff about a real sale needs them just as much as an external brief
   would. Corrected in step 5 — the deciding factor is whether the topic is a
   commercial engagement, not which brief type is generating the document.
3. **Contact-info lookup had to be manually requested — now a standing step.**
   Resolving attendee names wasn't enough; real contact info (email, phone, title) for
   external counterparts needed to be pulled from Odoo, and doing that well meant
   starting from the linked SO/PO's own contacts rather than a generic search. Now
   explicit in step 4, not something that needs to be asked for.
4. **Part number / product verification wasn't referenced at all — now is.** The
   actual run needed to check a model variant and part number against MPM's product
   catalog. The right source turned out to be the MPM Technical Reference System (see
   Prerequisites) — added as a standing reference, not previously known to this skill.
5. **The manifest schema got meaningfully better in real use — pulled back into the
   spec.** Confidence tags (verified/stated/open), a folder-layout header, split
   numbered-vs-proposed open items, and a Findings/flags section for operational
   observations (e.g. "this topic's Plaud AI summary is unreliable, build from the raw
   transcript") all emerged from the real run and are now part of the documented
   schema in step 2, not a one-off improvisation.
6. **Meeting transcript wasn't being archived — now a standing step.** The raw
   transcript needed to be saved alongside the brief so future runs don't depend on
   the source connector still being reachable. Now explicit in step 8.

None of these were failures of judgment in the moment — they're gaps between what
this file said and what turned out to actually be needed, now closed.

## Resolved limitation (was open 2026-09-21, fixed 2026-09-22)

Earlier attempts to pull this skill's first real test recording failed for two
compounding reasons, now both understood:
1. The deprecated `Plaud MCP` connector's `list`/`search` tools returned empty results
   or timed out regardless of parameters — root cause not fully diagnosed, but moot:
   don't use that connector at all (see Prerequisites above).
2. Direct lookup via the *official* `Plaud` connector's `get_file`/`get_transcript`
   still 404'd, because the id taken from the Plaud web app's URL
   (`b0df60b679f31383f770d91db6b5bf46`) was missing the `of_` prefix the API's real
   `file_id` requires (`of_b0df60b679f31383f770d91db6b5bf46`). Resolving the id via
   `list_files(query=...)` instead of reading it off a URL fixed this immediately.

Verified 2026-09-22: a live pull via the official connector for this same recording
returned content matching the manually-uploaded transcript used to build the first
real brief, confirming both that the fix works and that the original brief's content
was accurate. Recap mode's live data path is now confirmed working end-to-end.

## Provenance

Component library, tokens, and this workflow were derived from two real test runs
(2026-09-21): a recap brief for a real APTA 2026 booth planning meeting, and a
rewrap of an unrelated pre-mortem document to validate the component system against a
different content shape. See CW-027's Concept.md (Drive) for full design history and
the five other planned skills in this family (vendor-partner-brief, status-update-brief,
five-whys-brief, kickoff-brief, development-brief) — none built yet.