Prompt Template AI Workflow Meetings Operations

This is a reusable prompt engineering template. Feed it a meeting recording (SRT transcript, audio reference, or raw notes) and it produces a structured intelligence brief that someone who missed the meeting can act on immediately. Copy, customize, and plug into your own AI workflows.

This is not a transcript summary tool. It produces a decision log, accountability record, and relationship map. The output structure below is designed to be used directly, not reformatted.
Setup

Before Processing

The processor follows four pre-processing steps before generating any output:

Read the full transcript. Do not skim. SRT files have fragmented sentences across subtitle blocks. Reconstruct full sentences before interpreting meaning.
Identify all speakers. SRT files sometimes tag speakers with <v Name> tags. When tags are absent, use context clues (names mentioned, role references, who responds to whom) to attribute statements. When attribution is uncertain, say so.
Note the meeting date from the filename or content. Convert all relative references ("tomorrow", "next week", "Thursday") to absolute dates.
Cross-reference project state. If this is a client meeting, check for a project CLAUDE.md or memory files in the relevant project directory for prior context. Compare what was discussed against known project state.
Output

Output Structure

The processor produces all applicable sections below. Sections with no content are omitted. Nothing is fabricated to fill a section.

1. Header

## Meeting: [Title / Participants]
Date: [Absolute date]
Duration: [If determinable from timestamps]
Participants: [Name - Role/Company, for each person]
Recording: [File path or link if provided]

2. Summary

3-5 sentences max. What was this meeting about, what got decided, and what happens next. Written for someone who has 30 seconds. No fluff. Lead with the most important outcome.

3. Key People and Relationships

Only included if the meeting reveals relationship dynamics, new contacts, role changes, or reporting structures that aren't obvious.

- [Name] - [Role]. [What this meeting revealed about them.]

4. Decisions Made

Numbered list. Each decision is a statement of fact, not a summary of discussion. Includes who made or approved the decision.

1. [Decision] - [Who decided]. [Brief rationale if stated.]

5. Action Items

Table format. Every commitment, task, or follow-up mentioned. Specific about what "done" looks like.

| # | Owner | Action | Deadline | Context |
|---|-------|--------|----------|---------|

Rules for action items:

If no deadline was stated, write "TBD" and note if urgency was implied.
If the owner is ambiguous, flag it: "Owner unclear (likely X based on context)".
Distinguish between hard commitments ("I will do X tomorrow") and soft intentions ("we should probably look at X").
Include internal-only items (things to do before next meeting, research tasks, prep work).

6. Promises Made

Distinct from action items. A promise is a verbal commitment from one person to another that creates accountability.

- [Who] to [Whom]: "[Near-exact quote or close paraphrase]" -- [Context]

7. Deadlines

Only hard dates or timeframes that were explicitly stated or agreed to. No inferred deadlines.

| Date | What | Who | Status |
|------|------|-----|--------|

8. Issues and Blockers

Problems identified, things that are broken, risks flagged. Separates what was identified from what was resolved.

Identified:
1. [Issue] -- [Impact if not addressed]

Resolved in meeting:
1. [Issue] -- [Resolution]

9. Ideas and Solutions

Things proposed, brainstormed, or suggested that aren't yet decisions. Includes who proposed them and whether they got traction.

- [Idea] ([Proposed by]) -- [Reception: accepted, tabled, needs research, etc.]

10. Questions Asked and Answers Given

Only substantive Q&A that affects understanding or decisions. Skips pleasantries and rhetorical questions.

- Q ([Asker]): [Question]
  A ([Responder]): [Answer or "Unanswered -- needs follow-up"]

11. Open Questions

Questions raised but not answered, or topics where the group acknowledged uncertainty. These become research tasks or agenda items for the next meeting.

1. [Question] -- [Who needs to answer, if known]

12. Constraints

Limitations, dependencies, or boundaries that were stated or discovered during the meeting.

- [Constraint] -- [Impact on what]

13. Internal Review Notes

For the person processing this meeting only. Things that jumped out as inconsistent, concerning, or worth flagging that weren't explicitly called out in the meeting. This section is private analysis, not meeting content.

Examples of internal review notes:

"Scott said 60% margin but the budget shows 50% on three items. Worth auditing."

"Jordan agreed to finish pipeline changes but didn't give a timeline. Could block sync indefinitely."

"This is the third meeting where X was promised for 'next week.' Pattern worth addressing."
Rules

Processing Rules

These eight rules govern how the processor interprets and extracts information from raw meeting content.

Reconstruct fragmented speech. SRT files break mid-sentence. "I'm going to be doing tomorrow all the formulas" is one statement across two subtitle blocks. Read it as one.
Separate signal from noise. Meetings contain small talk, tangents, repeated explanations, and verbal tics. Extract the signal. Skip "Yeah, yeah, totally, right, sure" unless it constitutes agreement to a decision.
Attribute everything. Every action item, decision, and promise has an owner. If the transcript doesn't make it clear, say so rather than guessing.
Preserve specificity. If someone says "6 liters per thousand square feet," write exactly that. Do not round, generalize, or paraphrase numbers, formulas, product names, or technical details.
Flag contradictions. If someone says something that conflicts with a prior statement in the same meeting, or with known project state, note it in Internal Review.
Convert relative dates. "Tomorrow" becomes the actual date based on meeting date. "Next Thursday" becomes the actual date. "End of week" becomes Friday's date.
Distinguish decisions from preferences. "I think we should" is a preference. "Let's do it" or "Okay, that's what we'll do" is a decision. "I want" from a decision-maker is usually a decision.
Don't editorialize in output sections. Save analysis for Internal Review. The other sections should be factual records of what was said and agreed to.
Context

Multi-Meeting Context

When memory files or prior meeting notes exist for the project:

Note which action items from prior meetings were addressed or remain open.
Flag any decisions that contradict or supersede prior decisions.
Update project memory with new information after processing (new contacts, changed timelines, revised decisions).
Follow-up

After Processing

Three post-processing steps close the loop:

Ask if the user wants any section expanded or clarified.
If this is a client meeting with an active project, offer to update the project's memory files with new information.
If action items have owners on the Dovito side, offer to create tasks in the relevant project management system (ClickUp, Systematics).
The output is not a transcript summary. It is a decision log, accountability record, and relationship map that someone who missed the meeting can act on immediately.
Customization. This template defaults to markdown output. Swap the output format (Word, HTML, slides) by pairing with the appropriate tool. The content structure stays the same regardless of format. Trigger words: "meeting notes", "process meeting", "meeting recording", "action items from call", "what happened in this meeting", or provide an .srt file.