Install
openclaw skills install @gechengling/ai-meeting-intelligenceAI-powered meeting intelligence assistant — automatically transcribe, summarize, extract action items, generate follow-ups, and track decisions across your meeting lifecycle. Supports multi-language transcription, speaker identification, sentiment analysis, and integration with calendar/email tools. Built for project managers, executives, sales teams, and distributed teams who need to capture and act on meeting insights without manual note-taking. Keywords: meeting notes, meeting transcription, action items extraction, meeting summary, decision tracking, calendar integration, agenda preparation, meeting efficiency, AI meeting assistant, 会议纪要, 会议转录, 智能摘要, 行动项提取, 会议效率, 待办跟进, 决策追踪.
openclaw skills install @gechengling/ai-meeting-intelligenceTransform chaotic meetings into structured, actionable insights. This AI-powered meeting intelligence assistant handles the complete meeting lifecycle—from agenda preparation to decision tracking—freeing you to focus on what matters: the conversation itself.
会议纪要、智能会议、会议分析、会议摘要、提取行动项、会议转录、开会被忘meeting notes, meeting summary, transcribe meeting, action items, decision tracking, prepare meeting, meeting agendaMeeting content is one of the easiest ways to leak sensitive information into a model context. Apply these rules before pasting anything:
Data minimisation(数据最小化)
客户A、Region-2) and keep the
mapping locally, outside the conversation.Save-and-send gate(保存与外发必须先预览确认)
Consent(录音与转录的同意)
Accuracy boundary
Worked example — 15-minute agenda generated from a one-line brief
Brief: "理赔时效专项复盘会,参会:运营、客服、IT,60 分钟"
| Slot | Item | Owner | Min | Output expected |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 | 上期行动项闭环情况 | 运营 | 5 | 3 项已闭环 / 2 项延期及原因 |
| 5–20 | 时效数据:结案时长分布 | 运营 | 15 | P50 / P90 与上月对比 |
| 20–40 | 卡点归因:系统与人工各占多少 | IT + 客服 | 20 | Top 3 卡点及责任方 |
| 40–55 | 决策:是否调整时效考核口径 | 全体 | 15 | 明确是/否 + 生效日 |
| 55–60 | 行动项与责任人确认 | 主持人 | 5 | 每项一责任人一截止日 |
The last two rows are what generic agenda generators omit: a named decision and a named owner per item."
Worked example — live tagging shorthand
Use single-character marks while the meeting runs, then expand them afterwards:
[D] decision [A] action [Q] question [R] risk [T] tbd/需要补数据
↓
09:12 [D] 万元以下的案件不再要求人工复核 —— 运营负责人确认
09:20 [A] IT 在 9/20 前提交接口改造方案
09:31 [Q] 带病体案件是否适用同一时效口径?—— 未决
09:44 [R] 若 10 月上线,与年终结算并行,存在回归风险
09:52 [T] 缺少 8 月分中心数据,待补
Two rules that make the expansion reliable:
[A] must get an owner and a date before the meeting ends; an action
without both is not an action.[Q] must be either answered or carried to the next agenda. Unanswered
questions that silently disappear are the main failure mode of meeting notes.Worked example — three summary lengths from the same meeting
| Version | Length | Reader | Contains | Must NOT contain |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30-second | 2–3 句 | 高管/未参会者 | 结论 + 金钱/时间影响 | 过程、争论细节 |
| 1-minute | 1 段 | 参会者 | 结论 + 行动项 + 责任人 | 逐字引用、情绪描述 |
| 5-minute | 1 页 | 项目组/审计 | 决策依据、反对意见、数据、未决问题 | 与决策无关的闲聊 |
Rule: the same 3 facts must appear in all three versions. If they differ, the short version is editorialising rather than summarising.
Follow-up email micro-example
Subject: 理赔时效专项复盘会 - 决策与你的行动项(9/10)
本次确认:
1. 万元以下案件取消人工复核,10/1 起生效
2. 时效考核口径维持不变(未调整)
你的下一步:
- IT 接口改造方案 —— 9/20 前提交
- 8 月分中心数据 —— 9/12 前补齐
待决事项:带病体案件是否适用同一口径,下次会议定
Note the last line: unresolved items are stated as unresolved. Omitting them is what makes follow-ups misleading.
Worked example — a quarterly meeting-health report
| Metric | This quarter | Last quarter | Read | Action if bad |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 会议总时长/人/周 | 9.5 h | 11.2 h | 下降,健康 | — |
| 无议程会议占比 | 41% | 38% | 恶化 | 强制模板 |
| 决策会占比 | 22% | 25% | 略降 | 合并周会 |
| 行动项按期完成率 | 63% | 71% | 恶化 | 减少并行项 |
| 平均参会人数 | 8.4 | 7.9 | 微增 | 拆小会 |
| 重复议题次数 | 6 | 3 | 翻倍 | 该议题需专项决策 |
Interpretation guardrails:
1. INPUT: Meeting transcript/notes/raw text
↓
2. PROCESS: AI extracts key information
- Speakers and roles
- Topics discussed
- Decisions made
- Action items assigned
- Questions raised
↓
3. OUTPUT: Structured meeting intelligence
- Executive summary
- Action item list
- Decision log
- Follow-up recommendations
Phase 1: Preparation
├── Receive meeting topic/context
├── Generate agenda template
├── Pull relevant background data
└── Prepare attendee briefings
Phase 2: During Meeting
├── Log notes in real-time
├── Mark key moments
├── Track time vs. agenda
└── Note unresolved items
Phase 3: Post-Meeting
├── Transcribe and clean up notes
├── Generate summary versions
├── Extract action items
├── Draft follow-ups
└── Update trackers
Phase 4: Follow-Through
├── Send summaries to attendees
├── Create task reminders
├── Track action item status
└── Flag overdue items
Meeting: Q2 Product Planning
Date: 2026-05-15
Attendees: Sarah (PM), Mike (Eng), Lisa (Design), John (Sales)
Notes:
- Sarah opened with Q1 review, metrics looking good
- Mike mentioned technical blockers on API integration
- Lisa showed new mockups, everyone loved the dark mode
- John said enterprise clients are asking for SSO
- Decided to prioritize SSO for next sprint
- Mike will create technical spec by Friday
- Lisa to update mockups with SSO flows by next week
- Sarah to schedule follow-up with enterprise team
Expected Output:
## Meeting Summary: Q2 Product Planning
### Quick Take (30 sec)
Q1 metrics positive. Team aligned on Q2 priorities: SSO feature for enterprise clients. Technical spec due Friday, mockups by next week.
### Decisions Made
1. Prioritize SSO implementation in next sprint
2. Enterprise team meeting to be scheduled
### Action Items
| Item | Owner | Due Date |
|------|-------|----------|
| Create technical spec for SSO | Mike | 2026-05-20 |
| Update mockups with SSO flows | Lisa | 2026-05-22 |
| Schedule enterprise team follow-up | Sarah | 2026-05-18 |
### Discussion Highlights
- Enterprise clients requesting SSO (high priority)
- Dark mode mockups well received
- API integration blockers acknowledged
Input: Raw meeting transcript or bullet points Output: Structured action item list with:
Input: "Quarterly planning meeting with engineering and product teams" Output:
## Q2 Planning Meeting Agenda
### Pre-Meeting (15 min)
- Review Q1 OKRs and completion status
- Prepare Q2 targets draft
### Agenda (60 min total)
1. Q1 Retrospective (15 min)
- Wins to celebrate
- Areas for improvement
2. Q2 Goal Setting (25 min)
- Product roadmap alignment
- Engineering capacity planning
- Resource requirements
3. Team Updates (10 min)
- Cross-functional dependencies
- Blockers and risks
4. Wrap-Up (10 min)
- Confirm decisions
- Assign next steps
Input(用户已自行脱敏):
会议:医惠锡城产品定价讨论
时间:2026-09-08 参会:产品部A、精算B、数据C、合规D
- A:带病体承保的赔付率数据还没拿到,医保局接口预计 9 月下旬开通
- B:没有带病体数据,只能先用行业经验值做区间定价,误差可能 ±15%
- C:健康体部分数据已够,可以先出健康体方案
- D:区间定价对外披露要谨慎,定价说明里不能出现未经验证的假设
- 决定:先出健康体方案(9/20 前),带病体等数据到齐后第二版
- B 负责健康体精算假设文档,9/18 前
- C 负责与医保局对接,每周反馈接口进度
Expected Output:
## 会议纪要:医惠锡城产品定价讨论(2026-09-08)
### 30 秒摘要
带病体赔付数据尚未获取(医保局接口预计 9 月下旬开通),会议决定分两版推进:
健康体方案 9/20 前先出,带病体方案待数据齐备后出第二版。
### 决策
1. 采用分版推进:健康体先行(9/20 前),带病体后置
2. 带病体暂不使用未经验证的行业经验值作为对外定价依据
### 行动项
| 事项 | 责任人 | 截止 | 交付物 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 健康体精算假设文档 | B(精算) | 09-18 | 假设说明 + 敏感性测试 |
| 医保局接口对接周报 | C(数据) | 每周五 | 进度反馈 |
| 健康体方案初稿 | A(产品) | 09-20 | 方案文档 |
### 未决事项
- 带病体赔付率数据来源与时效(依赖外部接口,非本团队可控)
- 区间定价的对外披露口径(需合规复核)
### 风险
- 若接口延迟超过 10 月中旬,带病体方案将错过产品报备窗口 —— 建议 9/30 设检查点
保存前提示: 本纪要含产品名称与内部时间安排,属内部信息。 请确认分发范围后再保存或外发;对外版本需删除"风险"与"未决事项"两节。
Input:
我们有 6 次关于"是否上数据中台"的会议记录。这个决策到底定了没有?
Output:
决策追踪结果:未定(已讨论 6 次)
| # | 日期 | 结论 | 阻塞原因 | 状态 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 06-12 | 待评估 | 需要成本测算 | 已闭环 |
| 2 | 06-26 | 待评估 | 需要成本测算(未做) | 延期 |
| 3 | 07-10 | 倾向做 | 需要确定牵头部门 | 未闭环 |
| 4 | 07-24 | 待评估 | 牵头部门未定(重复阻塞) | 延期 |
| 5 | 08-14 | 倾向做 | 预算未批 | 未闭环 |
| 6 | 09-04 | 待评估 | 又回到成本测算 | 回退 |
诊断:
- 6 次会议中,"成本测算"出现 3 次、"牵头部门"出现 2 次,均未闭环
- 这不是信息不足的问题,是没有人为这两件事负责
- 会议在"倾向做"和"待评估"之间循环,属于典型的无主决策
建议(不是再开一次会):
1. 指定一名决策提案人(不是会议召集人),负责写出一页纸提案
2. 明确决策人与决策日期(例如 9/30 前由分管领导拍板)
3. 若 9/30 无法决策,则显式记录"本季度不做",并在下季度重新评估
4. 第 7 次会议的议程应只含一项:拍板或明确否决
给管理层的提示:重复议题超过 3 次,成本已经超过决策本身的价值。
## [Meeting Title]
**Date:** [Date]
**Time:** [Start] - [End]
**Location:** [Room/Video Link]
**Attendees:** [Names and Roles]
### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence overview]
### Agenda vs. Actual
| Topic | Planned | Actual |
|-------|---------|--------|
| ... | ... | ... |
### Key Decisions
1. [Decision 1]
2. [Decision 2]
### Action Items
- [ ] [Task] - @Owner - Due: [Date]
- [ ] [Task] - @Owner - Due: [Date]
### Open Questions
- [Question 1]
- [Question 2]
### Next Meeting
- Scheduled: [Date/Time]
- Focus: [Topics]
Subject: [Meeting Title] - Key Decisions & Your Action Items
Hi [Name],
Following up on today's [meeting name]. Here's a quick summary:
**What We Decided:**
- [Decision 1]
- [Decision 2]
**Your Next Steps:**
- [Action item 1] - by [date]
- [Action item 2] - by [date]
**Resources:**
- [Link to meeting notes]
- [Link to relevant documents]
Let me know if you have any questions!
Best,
[Your name]
| 会议类型 | 核心产出 | 纪要侧重 | 最常遗漏 | 分发范围 | 保存前确认点 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 例会/站会 | 进度同步 | blockers 与变更 | 上周行动项状态 | 团队内部 | 是否含未公开排期 |
| 决策会 | 一个明确决策 | 决策 + 依据 + 反对意见 | 决策生效日与适用范围 | 决策相关方 | 决策表述是否与决议一致 |
| 评审会 | 通过/不通过 + 修改清单 | 问题清单与责任人 | 未通过项的重审时间 | 项目组 | 是否含个人绩效评价 |
| 1on1 | 成长与障碍 | 约定项(不写细节) | 双方共同确认 | 仅双方 | 默认不留存细节,确认后再存 |
| 客户/外部会议 | 承诺与下一步 | 对外承诺的准确措辞 | 内部推测被写入对外版 | 内外部版本分开 | 内外两版分别确认 |
| 复盘会 | 可复用结论 | 时间线 + 根因 + 改进项 | 谁负责跟改进项 | 相关团队 | 是否含追责性表述 |
| 董事会/监管类 | 合规留痕 | 逐项决议、表决情况 | 出席与回避记录 | 法定范围 | 须与正式决议文本核对 |
| Use Case | Recommended Tools | 数据敏感度 | 是否需要脱敏 | 保存/外发前的人工确认点 | 典型误用 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calendar sync | Google Calendar, Outlook | 低(标题/时间) | 一般不需要 | 外部参会人是否可见 | 把议题详情写进日历标题外泄 |
| Note-taking | Notion, Obsidian, Evernote | 高(全文) | 需要 | 全文预览 + 确认落库 | 未脱敏全文直接同步到云端 |
| Task management | Todoist, Asana, Linear, Jira | 中(任务描述) | 视描述内容 | 任务名是否含客户名 | 把客户名写进公开看板 |
| Video conferencing | Zoom, Google Meet, Teams | 高(录音/转录) | 需要 | 参会人同意 + 保留期限 | 未经同意开启自动转录 |
| CRM sync | Salesforce, HubSpot | 高(客户信息) | 需要 | 字段级确认 | 把内部猜测写入客户档案 |
| Email follow-ups | Gmail, Outlook | 高(对外) | 需要 | 内外部版本分别确认 | 直接发送未经确认的草稿 |
| 本地归档(推荐) | 本地 Markdown / 内网 Wiki | 可控 | 视内容 | 落盘路径与权限确认 | 默认保存到公共目录 |
Verify every item against your vendor's documentation and your own compliance function before acting on it.
| 关注点 | 需向谁确认 | 与本技能的关系 |
|---|---|---|
| 会议录音/转录的告知同意要求 | 本单位合规/法务 | 决定能否开启自动转录 |
| 会议记录的保存期限与归档方式 | 档案与合规部门 | 决定纪要落哪里、存多久 |
| 金融/保险机构会议留痕要求 | 监管机构最新规定(以官方发布为准) | 涉及决策类会议的纪要完整性 |
| 第三方会议 AI 服务的数据出境与存储地 | 供应商 DPIA/合同 | 决定能否使用云端转录 |
| 生成式 AI 处理内部信息的内部政策 | 本单位 AI 治理制度 | 决定哪些内容可进入模型上下文 |
最近动态(截至 2026-09-10,以官方最新发布为准)
Solution: Provide the AI with whatever you have—bullet points, partial transcripts, even voice memos. The assistant can work with fragmentary input and will clearly indicate confidence levels.
Solution: Use the daily digest feature to get an overview of all meetings, cross-reference action items, and identify scheduling conflicts.
Solution: When ambiguous, flag the item for clarification rather than assigning arbitrarily. Include a "Verify owner" tag.
Solution: Emphasize that sensitive meetings should be handled locally. Provide a "sanitize" mode that removes sensitive names/companies while preserving structure.
Last Updated: 2026-09-10