majiayu000 Quick Start
Tell me:
- Which meeting are you rating? (name, date, and who ran it)
- Did it achieve its goal? (yes/no/partially)
- What's the one thing you'd change?
I'll walk you through a structured evaluation, score the meeting across 5 dimensions, check for trends if this is a recurring meeting, and give you specific recommendations.
Shortcut: /meeting-feedback [meeting name] -- 3/5, pre-read was late -- and I'll build the full assessment.
Meeting Feedback Skill
Evaluate meeting effectiveness and identify improvements. Quick retrospective to make future meetings better.
When to Use This Skill
- Immediately after important meetings (within 10 minutes)
- After recurring meetings (to improve cadence)
- When a meeting felt unproductive (diagnose what went wrong)
- For team retrospectives on meeting culture
Quick Feedback
Use after any meeting:
Meeting: [Meeting name]
Date: [Date]
⭐ Rating: [1-5 stars]
What worked:
- [One thing that was effective]
What didn't:
- [One thing that was wasteful]
One change for next time:
- [Specific improvement]
Full Feedback
Use after high-stakes or recurring meetings:
Step 1: Meeting Details
Meeting: [Name]
Date: [Date]
Duration: [Scheduled time] → [Actual time]
Attendees: [Number of people]
Owner: [Who ran it]
Step 2: Objectives Assessment
## Did We Achieve the Goal?
Original purpose: [What the agenda said]
✅ / ❌ Goal achieved?
If no:
- What was missing? [Explanation]
- What blocked us? [Blocker]
Step 3: Effectiveness Scoring
Rate each dimension (1-5 scale) using these scoring anchors:
## Effectiveness Scores
### 1. Preparation (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No agenda shared, attendees didn't know the purpose
2 - Agenda existed but was vague or shared less than 1 hour before
3 - Clear agenda shared day-before, most attendees came prepared
4 - Detailed agenda with pre-reads linked, all attendees prepared
5 - Pre-reads reviewed by all, discussion started at full speed from minute one
- Pre-read sent on time?
- Attendees came prepared?
- Agenda was clear?
### 2. Time Management (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - Started 10+ min late, ran over by 15+ min, no time for decisions
2 - Started late or ran over, some agenda items skipped
3 - Started roughly on time, mostly followed agenda, ended within 5 min of scheduled
4 - Started on time, all agenda items covered, ended on time
5 - Started on time, agenda covered with time to spare, ended early or used extra time for bonus discussion
- Started on time?
- Stayed on agenda?
- Ended on time?
### 3. Participation (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - One person talked the entire time, multiple attendees were silent, wrong people in room
2 - Two or three people dominated, several attendees disengaged or multitasking
3 - Most people contributed at least once, some imbalance in airtime
4 - Balanced discussion, facilitator drew out quiet voices, all key perspectives heard
5 - Every attendee contributed meaningfully, active listening evident, diverse perspectives surfaced and built upon
- Right people in room?
- Everyone contributed?
- No one dominated?
### 4. Decisions (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No decisions made, unclear who had authority, meeting ended with "let's discuss more"
2 - Decision was vaguely reached but not stated explicitly, rationale unclear
3 - Decision made and stated aloud, decision-maker was clear, but rationale not documented
4 - Decision made with clear rationale, dissent captured, communicated to stakeholders
5 - Decision made using structured process (options evaluated, criteria applied), rationale documented, dissent recorded, communication plan in place
- Clear decision-maker?
- Decision was made?
- Rationale documented?
### 5. Action Items (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No action items captured, vague "we should do X" statements, no owners
2 - Some action items noted but missing owners or deadlines
3 - Action items listed with owners, but deadlines vague ("next week" instead of specific dates)
4 - All action items have specific owners and due dates, sent to attendees within 2 hours
5 - Action items with owners, dates, and success criteria; tracked in project management tool; follow-up mechanism confirmed
- Clear next steps?
- Owners assigned?
- Due dates set?
**Overall Score:** [Average] / 5
Step 4: What Worked
## What Worked Well
✅ [Strength 1]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
✅ [Strength 2]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
✅ [Strength 3]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
Step 5: What Didn't Work
## What Didn't Work
❌ [Problem 1]
- Impact: [How it hurt the meeting]
- Root cause: [Why it happened]
- Fix for next time: [Specific change]
❌ [Problem 2]
- Impact: [How it hurt the meeting]
- Root cause: [Why it happened]
- Fix for next time: [Specific change]
Step 6: Meeting Smells
Common antipatterns - check for these:
## Meeting Smells (Check all that apply)
[ ] **Status report meeting**
- People just shared updates (could've been async)
- Fix: Send updates in doc, use meeting for decisions
[ ] **Too many people**
- 10+ attendees, most silent
- Fix: Required vs optional attendees, record for others
[ ] **Rehashing decisions**
- Revisiting previously made choices
- Fix: Document decisions, share context better
[ ] **No clear owner**
- Unclear who was driving the meeting
- Fix: Assign meeting owner in agenda
[ ] **Presentation, not discussion**
- Someone read slides for 30+ minutes
- Fix: Send deck as pre-read, meeting for Q&A only
[ ] **Meeting to schedule another meeting**
- No decision, just agreed to meet again
- Fix: Make decision now or cancel
[ ] **Hidden agenda**
- Real topic emerged mid-meeting
- Fix: Be explicit about purpose upfront
[ ] **No pre-read**
- First 20 min wasted on context-setting
- Fix: Send materials 24 hours before
[ ] **Action items unclear**
- Vague next steps, no owners
- Fix: Use action item template with owners + dates
Step 7: Recommendations
## Recommendations for Next Time
### Must Change
🔴 [Critical fix 1]: [Specific action]
🔴 [Critical fix 2]: [Specific action]
### Should Change
🟡 [Important fix 1]: [Specific action]
🟡 [Important fix 2]: [Specific action]
### Could Change
🟢 [Nice-to-have 1]: [Specific action]
Step 8: Meeting Continuation Decision
## Should This Meeting Continue?
For recurring meetings:
✅ Keep as-is: Meeting is working well
🔄 Keep with changes: Meeting is valuable but needs fixes
⏸️ Pause: Revisit in [X weeks/months]
❌ Cancel: Not providing value, eliminate
If keeping:
- Frequency: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Duration: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Attendees: [Add/remove who?]
- Format: [What changes to agenda/structure?]
Output Format
# Meeting Feedback: [Meeting Name]
**Date:** [Date] | **Duration:** [X min] | **Attendees:** [Count]
---
## Overall Assessment
**Rating:** ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)
**Goal achieved?** ✅ Yes / ❌ No
---
## Effectiveness Breakdown
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
|-----------|-------|-------|
| Preparation | ⭐⭐⭐ | Pre-read sent late |
| Time Management | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Started/ended on time |
| Participation | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Good discussion |
| Decisions | ⭐⭐⭐ | Decision unclear |
| Action Items | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Clear owners |
**Overall:** 4.0 / 5
---
## What Worked
✅ **[Strength 1]**
- [Why it worked]
✅ **[Strength 2]**
- [Why it worked]
---
## What Didn't Work
❌ **[Problem 1]**
- Impact: [Consequence]
- Fix: [Specific change]
❌ **[Problem 2]**
- Impact: [Consequence]
- Fix: [Specific change]
---
## Meeting Smells Detected
- [ ] Status report meeting
- [x] Too many people (12 attendees, 5 silent)
- [ ] Rehashing decisions
- [x] No pre-read sent
---
## Recommendations
### Must Change
🔴 Send pre-read 24 hours before (not day-of)
🔴 Reduce attendees to 6-7 (make others optional)
### Should Change
🟡 Add explicit decision-maker to agenda
### Could Change
🟢 Try 45-minute slot instead of 60
---
## Meeting Continuation
**Decision:** 🔄 Keep with changes
**Changes to implement:**
- Frequency: Weekly → Biweekly
- Pre-read requirement: Mandatory
- Attendee list: Cut from 12 to 7
**Next review:** [Date in 1 month]
When to Trigger a Team Retro
Automatic trigger: Suggest a team meeting retrospective when ANY of these conditions are met:
- 3+ meetings scored below 3.0 on the same dimension within 30 days
- Same "meeting smell" detected in 3+ consecutive meetings of the same type
- Action items from meetings are consistently not completed (tracked via /meeting-cleanup)
- A stakeholder gives feedback that meetings are unproductive
How to connect: "Based on the last month of meeting feedback, [Dimension X] has scored below 3.0 in [N] meetings. This suggests a systemic issue rather than a one-off problem. Want to run a team retrospective focused on improving [Dimension X]?"
This turns the retro section from a standalone module into a natural escalation from individual meeting feedback.
Team Retrospective Format
For team-wide meeting culture assessment:
# Team Meeting Retrospective
**Period:** [Last month/quarter]
**Meetings evaluated:** [Count]
**Total time spent:** [Hours]
---
## Meeting Inventory
| Meeting | Frequency | Duration | Attendees | Avg Rating | Keep? |
|---------|-----------|----------|-----------|------------|-------|
| [Meeting 1] | Weekly | 60 min | 8 | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | ✅ |
| [Meeting 2] | Daily | 15 min | 5 | ⭐⭐⭐ | 🔄 |
| [Meeting 3] | Monthly | 120 min | 15 | ⭐⭐ | ❌ |
---
## Time Analysis
**Total meeting time:** [X hours/week]
- Valuable meetings: [Y hours] ([Z%])
- Low-value meetings: [A hours] ([B%])
**Goal:** Reduce low-value meeting time by 50%
---
## Common Issues Across Meetings
1. **[Issue 1]** - Seen in [X/Y meetings]
- Fix: [Team-wide change]
2. **[Issue 2]** - Seen in [X/Y meetings]
- Fix: [Team-wide change]
---
## Team Meeting Norms
Based on feedback, we're establishing:
**Preparation:**
- [ ] Pre-reads sent 24 hours before
- [ ] Attendees review materials before joining
- [ ] Can decline if unprepared
**Execution:**
- [ ] Start/end on time (no grace period)
- [ ] 25/50-minute slots (not 30/60)
- [ ] Notetaker rotates
- [ ] Decisions documented in real-time
**Follow-up:**
- [ ] Action items sent within 2 hours
- [ ] Owners confirm receipt
- [ ] Next meeting reviews action item progress
---
## Meetings to Experiment With
**Cancel for 1 month:**
- [Meeting X] - Let's try async updates instead
**Change format:**
- [Meeting Y] - Move from weekly 60min to biweekly 30min
**New meeting to trial:**
- [Meeting Z] - Monthly deep dive on [topic]
**Review date:** [One month from now]
Meeting Cost Calculator
Help teams visualize waste:
Meeting: [Name]
Frequency: [Weekly/Monthly/etc.]
Attendees & Costs:
- [Name 1]: $150/hr × 1hr = $150
- [Name 2]: $125/hr × 1hr = $125
- [Name 3]: $100/hr × 1hr = $100
[...]
**Per-meeting cost:** $800
**Annual cost:** $800 × 52 weeks = $41,600
**Question:** Is this meeting worth $41K/year?
If not, what changes would justify the cost?
Pro Tips
- Rate immediately: Memory fades fast
- Be specific: "Meeting ran long" → "Started 10 min late, no time for decisions"
- Celebrate good meetings: Positive reinforcement works
- Track trends: One bad meeting is data, three is a pattern
- Share feedback: Don't keep it private, send to meeting owner
- Act on insights: Feedback without action is pointless
- Review quarterly: Look at meeting portfolio, not just individual meetings
Common Mistakes to Avoid
❌ Generic feedback ("meeting was fine") ✅ Specific observations ("pre-read sent day-of, not 24hr before")
❌ Blaming people ("John talked too much") ✅ Blaming process ("No facilitator to manage airtime")
❌ Collecting feedback, never acting ✅ Implement top 1-2 fixes for next meeting
❌ Only noting problems ✅ Also capture what worked well (repeat it)
Integration with Other Skills
Before meeting:
/meeting-agenda- Create structured agenda
After meeting:
/meeting-notes- Document decisions and action items/meeting-cleanup- Batch process day's meetings
Recurring use:
- Run meeting-feedback monthly on recurring meetings
- Team retrospective quarterly on meeting culture
Quick Questions for Any Meeting
After any meeting, ask yourself:
- Value: Was this worth [cost in time/money]?
- Async: Could this have been an email/doc?
- Attendees: Did everyone need to be there?
- Outcome: Did we make a decision or just talk?
- Next time: One change that would make this 20% better?
Trend Tracking
After scoring, check outputs/meeting-notes/ and previous feedback files for the same recurring meeting. If previous feedback exists, show a trend:
## Meeting Effectiveness Trend: [Meeting Name]
Last 3 ratings: 3.0 -> 3.5 -> 4.0 (improving)
Dimension trends:
| Dimension | 3 Weeks Ago | 2 Weeks Ago | This Week | Trend |
|-----------------|-------------|-------------|-----------|------------|
| Preparation | 2 | 3 | 4 | Improving |
| Time Management | 4 | 4 | 4 | Stable |
| Participation | 3 | 3 | 3 | Stagnant |
| Decisions | 3 | 4 | 4 | Improved |
| Action Items | 3 | 3 | 5 | Improving |
Key insight: Preparation has improved since we started sending pre-reads 24hr before.
Attention needed: Participation has been flat at 3 for three weeks -- consider
assigning a facilitator or using round-robin format.
If no previous feedback exists, note: "This is the first feedback for this meeting. Future ratings will show trends."
Save feedback files with consistent naming: outputs/meeting-notes/feedback-[meeting-name]-[date].md to enable trend tracking.
Feedback Delivery Guidance
How to share meeting feedback constructively:
For meetings you organized:
- Share feedback openly with attendees
- Frame it as: "Here's how I'm planning to improve our next session based on what I observed"
- Commit to specific changes and ask for input
For meetings others organized:
- Frame as: "I noticed [specific observation] -- would you be open to trying [specific change]? I think it could help us [benefit]."
- Lead with what worked well before suggesting changes
- Never share raw scores without context or explanation
- Offer to help implement changes (e.g., "I can send pre-reads next time if that helps")
For team-wide patterns:
- Aggregate feedback across meetings before raising systemic issues
- Present data: "Over the last month, 4 of our 6 recurring meetings scored below 3 on Preparation"
- Propose a team norm rather than calling out individuals
What NOT to do:
- Don't share scores publicly without discussing privately first
- Don't use feedback as ammunition in unrelated discussions
- Don't wait months to share -- feedback is most useful within a week
Evaluating Meetings You Didn't Attend
When asked to evaluate a meeting you weren't in (e.g., PM asks "how was my team's sprint retro?"):
- Use the meeting notes as primary input (from /meeting-notes output or raw notes)
- Score only observable dimensions: Decisions, Action Items, and Time Management can be assessed from notes. Participation and Preparation usually cannot -- note them as "Unable to assess from notes."
- Flag the limitation: "Note: This evaluation is based on meeting notes, not direct observation. Participation and Preparation scores may not be accurate."
- Suggest: "For a more complete assessment, ask an attendee to answer 3 quick questions about preparation and participation."
Output Quality Self-Check
Before delivering the feedback, verify:
- Specific observations: Every "what worked" and "what didn't" cites a specific moment, not generalities
- Scoring anchors used: Each dimension score matches the anchor description, not just gut feeling
- Actionable fixes: Every problem identified has a specific, implementable recommendation
- Balanced: At least one "what worked" item is included (even for bad meetings)
- Trend checked: If this is a recurring meeting, previous feedback was searched for trend data
- Delivery guidance included: Feedback includes advice on how to share it constructively
- Meeting smells checked: The antipattern checklist was reviewed against this meeting
- Continuation decision made: For recurring meetings, a keep/change/pause/cancel recommendation is included
- Root causes identified: Problems trace to process issues, not blamed on individuals
- Time cost noted: The meeting cost (attendees x time) is contextualized against its value
If any check fails, revise before delivering.
Remember: Meeting culture is built one feedback loop at a time. Small improvements compound into massive time savings.
Context Routing Strategy
When the PM uses /meeting-feedback, I automatically:
1. Check Meeting Norms from Context
Source: Past /meeting-feedback outputs, team patterns
- What I look for: What has worked well in your team's meetings before
- How I use it: Tailor feedback recommendations to your meeting culture
- Example: "Your team values async pre-reads, emphasize that in feedback"
2. Reference Related Decisions
Source: context-library/decisions/ if this meeting made a decision
- What I look for: Decision that came out of the meeting
- How I use it: Note whether decision was crisp and clear
- Example: "Did the meeting achieve the decision that was supposed to be made?"
3. Track Meeting Effectiveness Trends
Source: Past meeting feedback (if available)
- What I look for: Patterns in what's working or failing
- How I use it: Flag if this is 3rd week of the same problem
- Example: "This is 3rd week 'pre-read sent late' — escalate as systemic issue"
4. Pull Attendee Context
Source: context-library/stakeholder-template.md
- What I look for: Attendees' roles, personality styles
- How I use it: Calibrate feedback (e.g., "Person X dominates, needs facilitation")
- Example: "VP Sales tends to redirect, consider appointing strong facilitator"
5. Route for Process Improvement
Routing logic:
- Individual meeting: Quick feedback loop
- Recurring meeting: Suggest changes for next occurrence
- Team pattern: Suggest
/meeting-cleanupto batch-process and identify systemic issues - Major issue: Flag for leadership discussion or team retrospective