Cc Internal Brief Writer

Internal Brief Writer

Creates internal-only account documentation -- escalation briefs, leadership summaries, cross-functional context documents, and manager review materials. Distinct from bi-account-brief (which is a data snapshot); this skill produces narrative documents with framing and recommendation placeholders. Part of the Communication & Content Production pillar.

This is a content generation skill for internal audiences. It assembles data and structures narrative. The CSM reviews and adds the judgment layer -- the "so what" and "what I recommend" that transforms data into action.

When to Run

• Triggered: By ic-escalation-router when an escalation is initiated (escalation brief)
• On-demand: When a CSM needs an internal document for a specific purpose
• Scheduled: Before manager 1:1s or leadership reviews (if configured)

Core Execution Logic

Step 1: Identify Document Type and Audience

Determine from the trigger or request:

Step 2: Pull Data Filtered by Audience

From bi-account-brief and other skills, select only what the audience needs:

Step 3: Structure by Document Type

Escalation Brief structure:

Leadership Summary structure:

Cross-Functional Context structure:

Step 4: Generate CSM Input Placeholders

Mark sections that require CSM judgment with clear placeholders:

Step 5: Quality Gates

Before delivering the brief:

• Is the headline instantly clear? A reader should understand the situation in 5 seconds
• Is the "specific ask" genuinely specific? "Please help" fails. "We need engineering to investigate the API latency affecting this account and provide a fix or timeline by March 14" succeeds
• Is the document length appropriate for the audience? Leadership gets 5-8 lines. Escalation teams get 1-2 pages. Mismatching length to audience wastes their time or leaves them without context
• Are all data points current? Stale data in an escalation brief undermines credibility
• Is anything included that should not be shared with this audience?

Output Format

{
  "document_id": "brief-2026-0089",
  "account_id": "string",
  "document_type": "escalation_brief",
  "audience": "Engineering -- Platform Team",
  "urgency": "high",
  "content": {
    "headline": "API latency issue affecting Acme Corp -- P1 open 12 days, EUR 85k ARR, renewal in 67 days",
    "account_context": { "arr": 85000, "health": 58, "trend": "declining", "renewal_days": 67 },
    "timeline": [
      { "date": "2026-02-26", "event": "Customer reported API latency >3s on dashboard queries" },
      { "date": "2026-02-27", "event": "Support ticket #4521 opened, P2. Initial investigation: no server-side issue found" },
      { "date": "2026-03-01", "event": "Escalated to P1 after customer confirmed issue affects 15 users" },
      { "date": "2026-03-05", "event": "Engineering identified potential database query optimisation. Fix estimated 3-5 days" },
      { "date": "2026-03-10", "event": "Fix not yet deployed. Customer increasingly frustrated" }
    ],
    "customer_impact": "Analytics team cannot run reports reliably. Estimated 4 hours per week in manual workarounds. Customer has raised this in 3 separate interactions",
    "resolution_attempts": [
      { "attempt": "Server-side cache flush (Feb 27)", "outcome": "No improvement" },
      { "attempt": "Customer-side browser cache clear (Feb 28)", "outcome": "Temporary improvement, issue returned" },
      { "attempt": "Database query review (Mar 5)", "outcome": "Root cause identified. Fix in development" }
    ],
    "specific_ask": "Deploy the database query optimisation fix and confirm performance returns to <500ms for dashboard queries. Needed by March 14",
    "customer_comms_status": "Customer knows engineering has identified the root cause. They expect resolution this week. Sentiment is frustrated but patient -- patience will not extend past Friday",
    "commercial_context": "EUR 85k ARR, renewal in 67 days. This issue is the primary risk factor for the renewal"
  },
  "csm_input_required": [
    "Recommended approach if the fix cannot be deployed by March 14",
    "Whether to involve executive sponsor given renewal proximity"
  ],
  "data_freshness": "all_current",
  "generated": "2026-03-10T14:00:00Z"
}

Handoff to Human

Confidence and Limitations

• High confidence for data assembly and formatting -- pulling from defined sources with structured templates is deterministic
• High confidence for timeline construction from support ticket data -- chronological event compilation
• Medium confidence for audience-appropriate detail level -- the default templates are sensible but the CSM may want different emphasis based on the specific audience member's preferences or the meeting's agenda
• Low confidence for the narrative layer. The brief assembles facts; the "so what" requires human judgment. A brief that presents data without interpretation is a report, not a brief. The CSM's additions transform it from data into a persuasive document
• Cannot assess internal political dynamics -- which teams are receptive, which will resist, who has capacity, who needs to be handled carefully. These dynamics shape how the brief should be framed
• Cannot determine the right level of detail for a specific reader. Some VPs want 3 sentences; others want 3 pages. The CSM knows their audience

Dependencies

Required:

• bi-account-brief (data foundation for all brief types)
• CRM API (account and contact data)

Strongly recommended:

• Support platform (for escalation timeline data)
• All Book Intelligence skills (for health, risk, and usage context)
• lo-sla-monitor (for commitment and SLA data in escalation briefs)
• lo-renewal-manager (for renewal context in commercial briefs)

Downstream consumers:

• ic-escalation-router (escalation briefs as routing attachments)
• ic-cross-func-prep (account briefs as meeting materials)
• CS leadership (leadership summaries for decision-making)
• Cross-functional teams (context briefs for escalation resolution)

References

• references/brief-templates.md -- Template structures for each document type with section definitions