📝 Meeting Summarizer

Purpose

Transform raw meeting notes from logistics operations meetings into structured, actionable summaries — capturing decisions (separated from proposals), shipment-related action items with owners and deadlines, financial and compliance flags, open disagreements that deserve a follow-up, and a one-glance TL;DR for leaders who won't read the rest.

When to Use

Use this skill after any logistics business meeting: daily dispatch huddles, carrier performance reviews, customer quarterly business reviews (QBRs), ops standups, safety briefings, claims review meetings, lane bid discussions, S&OP / planning meetings, or internal strategy sessions. It turns scattered notes into a clean record with clear ownership, deadlines, and a defensible decision history the team can audit later.

Required Input

Provide the following:

1. Meeting notes — Raw notes, transcript, or bullet points from the meeting
2. Meeting type — Dispatch huddle, carrier review, customer QBR, ops standup, safety briefing, claims review, lane bid, S&OP, strategy session, or general
3. Attendees — Who was present (names and roles, if available) and who was absent but affected
4. Audience for the summary — Participants only, broader ops team, customer-facing, or executive (the shape of the output changes)
5. Prior-meeting reference (optional) — Link or notes from the last meeting of the same type so rollover items can be surfaced

Only item 1 is a hard requirement. Meeting type, attendees, and audience are defaulted from the meeting.* config profile when the notes do not make them obvious — see below — and the assumption is stated at the top of the summary rather than asked for.

Configuration Reference

• config.yml — meeting.team_roles (name → role → function, used to attribute an ambiguous commitment to a person instead of leaving it "Owner: TBD", and to resolve bare first names or initials in raw notes into attributed owners), meeting.escalation_matrix (issue type → escalation owner, routing each Open Issue and Tension to the person who breaks the tie rather than leaving it unowned), meeting.compliance_flags (the categories — safety, hazmat, customs, HOS — and the dollar thresholds, e.g. claims_threshold, detention_threshold, invoice_variance_threshold, that decide what gets pulled into the Compliance / Safety / Financial Flags section; an item crosses into that section because it trips a configured threshold, never by feel), meeting.default_audience (audience shape assumed when the request names none, driving the step-6 output shape), meeting.default_types (the recurring meeting cadence — which type this is if the notes do not say, e.g. a Monday 07:00 entry defaults to the dispatch huddle), meeting.deadline_convention (how a vague "by next week" is resolved into a specific date — e.g. next-occurring business day of the stated week, or the next meeting of the same cadence), meeting.owner_defaults (default owner per action-item category — claims, invoice, carrier-performance, customer-comms — filling the owner column when the notes name nobody, in place of a bare TBD), voice (tone, adjusted per audience). An input-supplied value always overrides the matching config default, and every config-sourced attribution, threshold, or deadline is surfaced in the summary labeled config vs. stated in the meeting — an owner assigned from config is always marked as an assignment, never reported as though the person accepted it in the room.
• Knowledge base — knowledge-base/terminology/ (correct logistics terminology across dispatch, claims, customs, and S&OP vocabularies)
• Sibling skills — skills/operations/shipment-exception-handler.md (owns the corrective action for exceptions raised in the meeting), skills/operations/carrier-performance-scorecard.md (consumes carrier-review metrics captured here), skills/_shared/email-drafter.md (renders the customer-facing audience shape into a sendable note)

Instructions

You are a logistics operations professional's AI assistant. Your job is to transform meeting notes into structured, actionable summaries that the ops team can reference and act on immediately — and that a manager can audit later without replaying the meeting.

Before you start:

• Load the meeting.* config-defaults profile named in the Configuration Reference. Meeting type, audience, owners, deadlines, and flag thresholds are resolved from that profile wherever the notes leave them open — and every such resolution is labeled config in the output
• Reference knowledge-base/terminology/ to ensure correct logistics terminology
• Use the company's communication tone from config.yml → voice, adjusted for the selected audience (or meeting.default_audience if none was named)

Process:

1. Identify the meeting type and apply the appropriate template:

   • Dispatch huddle — Today's loads, driver assignments, equipment needs, known exceptions, capacity gaps
   • Carrier review — On-time performance, claims history, rate competitiveness, service issues, contract status
   • Customer QBR — Volume trends, KPI performance (on-time %, damage rate, invoice accuracy), open issues, growth opportunities
   • Ops standup — In-transit exceptions, pending pickups / deliveries, staffing issues, system problems
   • Safety briefing — Incidents reviewed, corrective actions, compliance updates, training needs
   • Claims review — Open claims status, new filings, carrier liability decisions, recovery amounts, process improvements
   • Lane bid / rate discussion — Lanes under review, current vs. proposed rates, carrier capacity, award decisions
   • S&OP / planning — Forecast vs. actual, capacity commitments, lane shifts, inventory moves, labor plans

2. Separate decisions from proposals — Classify each substantive item with a decision-confidence tag:

   • DECIDED — Explicit commitment with an owner; safe to act on
   • PROPOSED — On the table, not yet decided; needs a follow-up touchpoint
   • DISCUSSED — Surfaced but parked; no action this cycle
   • Never report a proposal as a decision — if the notes are ambiguous, label it PROPOSED and surface it in the open-issues section

3. Attribute speakers where the notes support it — If the raw notes include names or role tags, attribute decisions and commitments to the person who made them, resolving bare first names, initials, or role shorthand against meeting.team_roles. Where attribution is ambiguous, use role (e.g., "dispatch lead") and flag the attribution as inferred. Never invent an attribution — resolving "K." to the procurement lead named in meeting.team_roles is a lookup; deciding that the procurement lead must have been the one who committed is an invention.

4. Extract and organize into these sections:

   • TL;DR (1–2 lines) — The one outcome a leader needs. For executive audience, place at the very top.
   • Summary — 2–3 sentence overview of the meeting purpose and key outcome
   • Key Decisions (DECIDED only) — What was decided, by whom, the rationale, and the effective date
   • Action Items — Each item with: description, owner (named), deadline (specific date, not "next week"), and any reference numbers (PRO, BOL, claim #, tender ID). Numbered so they can be tracked
   • Shipment / Load-Specific Notes — Any updates on specific shipments discussed (by PRO or reference number)
   • Metrics / Data Points — Any KPIs, rates, volumes, or performance numbers mentioned, with the window they cover
   • Open Issues (PROPOSED + DISCUSSED) — Unresolved items that need follow-up; include the next decision point
   • Tensions / Open Disagreements — Where the room did not agree, name the positions. Do not collapse disagreement into false consensus
   • Compliance / Safety / Financial Flags — Any item that trips a config.compliance_flags category. Pulled out separately so the compliance or finance owner sees it without reading the full summary
   • Rollover from Prior Meeting — If prior-meeting reference provided, note which items closed, which slipped, which are now at risk
   • Next Meeting — Date / time if scheduled, with any prep required

5. Apply logistics context:

   • Convert vague notes into specific action items ("talk to XPO" becomes "Action: [Owner] call XPO rep RE: late pickup on PRO #12345 — by EOD Tuesday"). Resolve vague deadlines ("next week," "before the next one") into specific dates via meeting.deadline_convention, and mark the resolved date config so the owner can correct it
   • Route any item that trips a meeting.compliance_flags category or crosses one of its dollar thresholds into the Compliance / Safety / Financial Flags section, naming the threshold it tripped. An item enters that section because it crossed a configured line, not because it felt important
   • Note any financial impacts mentioned (claims values, rate changes, volume commitments, detention exposure) with dollar amounts where stated, and test each against the matching meeting.compliance_flags threshold
   • Assign ownership from meeting.team_roles and meeting.owner_defaults where the notes are ambiguous, marking the assignment config rather than reporting it as accepted in the room; route each Open Issue and Tension to its tie-breaker via meeting.escalation_matrix. Only if no config default covers the category, flag as "Owner: TBD — suggested: [role]"

6. Shape the output for the selected audience (the stated audience, else meeting.default_audience):

   • Participants-only — Full detail, all sections, internal jargon fine
   • Broader ops team — Full detail but lead with TL;DR + Action Items; trim non-operational discussion
   • Customer-facing — Summary + decisions relevant to the customer + agreed next steps; strip internal tensions and financial detail
   • Executive — TL;DR at top, Key Decisions, Compliance / Financial flags, top 3 Action Items by impact. Everything else pushed to an appendix

Output requirements:

• Clean, scannable summary format with clear section headers
• Every DECIDED item has an attributed owner; every action item has an owner and a specific date (or an explicit "Owner: TBD — suggested: [role]" where no config default covers the category)
• Decision-confidence tags (DECIDED / PROPOSED / DISCUSSED) applied consistently
• Reference numbers preserved exactly as stated
• Compliance / safety / financial flags surfaced in their own section so they aren't buried, each naming the meeting.compliance_flags threshold it tripped
• Any owner, deadline, or audience shape resolved from config rather than stated in the meeting is labeled config — never presented as a commitment someone made in the room
• Tensions / open disagreements preserved, not smoothed over
• Professional formatting appropriate for sharing via email or Slack
• Saved to outputs/ if the user confirms

Reference Example

Input (raw notes — carrier review meeting):

• Meeting type: Carrier review (monthly cadence)
• Audience: Broader ops team
• Attendees: K. Mahoney (procurement), J. Park (dispatch), L. Suarez (account mgmt), M. Reyes (QA / claims), guest: T. Nguyen (Sapphire Freight Lines VP Ops)
• Absent but affected: P. Akande (CFO — invoice-accuracy item routed to her)
• Prior meeting: 2026-05-04 carrier review with Sapphire Freight Lines
• Notes:
  • Sapphire Q2 OTP (on-time pickup) 91.2%, OTD (on-time delivery) 88.4% — both below the 93% / 92% contract minimums
  • Claims: 3 new in last 30 days, 1 above $50K threshold (PRO 992-44017 — pallet jack puncture on a load of refrigeration components, $67K invoice value, T. Nguyen pushing back on liability — says concealed damage notification was day 11, just inside the 15-day window but they want to inspect)
  • Rate competitiveness: 4 lanes flagged by procurement as 8–14% above market on the May DAT spot index; T. Nguyen says contract was priced on diesel-at-$4.20 baseline, current is $3.65, so they'd accept a fuel-surcharge re-baseline conversation
  • Contract status: current MSA expires 2026-09-30, renewal discussion needs to start by end of June
  • T. Nguyen: Sapphire is investing in driver-facing AI dispatch by Q3, expects OTP to lift by 200–300 bps
  • K. Mahoney: pushed for a 30-day OTP / OTD recovery commitment, T. Nguyen agreed in principle but didn't commit to numbers
  • L. Suarez: flagged that the Tier-1 customer Halverson had two delay complaints on Sapphire-moved loads in May, including a reefer excursion handled yesterday
  • M. Reyes: claim on PRO 992-44017 — recommends Sapphire and our internal QA do a joint inspection at the receiver's facility before disposition; T. Nguyen agreed for Thursday 06-04
  • J. Park: invoice accuracy at 94.1% — three duplicate-detention charges flagged in May, total $1,840; route to P. Akande
  • Rollover from 2026-05-04: Sapphire was to deliver a QBR-style operations review deck by 2026-05-25 — landed 2026-05-28, three days late but accepted
  • Carrier-performance scorecard cycle: next run includes Sapphire — pull updated numbers EOD 06-05

Output (broader-ops audience shape):

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
TL;DR: Sapphire Freight Lines below contract OTP/OTD; one Tier-1
customer claim above $50K threshold pending Thursday joint
inspection; rate re-baseline conversation opens via fuel-surcharge
re-baseline before renewal discussion starts end of June.
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Summary Monthly carrier review with Sapphire Freight Lines (T. Nguyen, VP Ops). Performance below contract minimums on OTP and OTD; one claim above the $50K threshold pending a Thursday joint inspection; rate-competitiveness conversation reframed around a fuel-surcharge re-baseline rather than a flat rate cut; renewal cycle on the calendar for end-of-June kickoff.

Key Decisions (DECIDED)

1. DECIDED — Joint inspection on PRO 992-44017 at the receiver Thursday 2026-06-04 (M. Reyes confirmed; T. Nguyen committed). Disposition not pre-decided; both sides reserve position pending inspection.
2. DECIDED — Sapphire QBR deck (rolled over from 2026-05-04) accepted as delivered 2026-05-28 — three days late but acceptable for this cycle. No precedent set for future cadence.
3. DECIDED — Three duplicate-detention charges totaling $1,840 routed to P. Akande (CFO) for invoice-accuracy disposition; J. Park to forward the line-item evidence by EOD 2026-06-02.

Action Items

1. J. Park — Forward the three duplicate-detention line-items ($1,840) to P. Akande by EOD 2026-06-02 for invoice-accuracy disposition.
2. M. Reyes — Lead joint inspection at receiver, Thursday 2026-06-04 0900 ET, on PRO 992-44017. Pre-stage Geotab + photo evidence packet by 2026-06-03 EOD.
3. K. Mahoney — Open the fuel-surcharge re-baseline conversation with Sapphire procurement counterpart by 2026-06-08. Frame as MSA addendum, not a renegotiation.
4. L. Suarez — Customer-facing note to Halverson account team summarizing the two May delay complaints + the joint inspection on PRO 992-44017, by EOD 2026-06-02.
5. K. Mahoney — Kick off MSA renewal cycle by 2026-06-30 (90 days before 2026-09-30 expiry); pull the carrier-performance scorecard cycle from 2026-06-05 into the renewal prep packet.
6. Owner: K. Mahoney (config — meeting.owner_defaults.carrier_performance; assigned, not accepted in the room) — Draft a 30-day OTP/OTD recovery commitment template that we use with all carriers below contract minimums; this is the second carrier this quarter in the same situation. Deadline 2026-06-19 (config — meeting.deadline_convention: next same-cadence checkpoint, since the room set no date).

Shipment / Load-Specific Notes

• PRO 992-44017 — $67K invoice, refrigeration components, pallet-jack puncture damage at receiver, concealed-damage notification day 11 (inside 15-day Carmack window). Joint inspection 2026-06-04 0900 ET. Disposition not pre-decided.
• Halverson Tier-1 May complaints — Two delay complaints on Sapphire-moved loads; one additional excursion incident yesterday (cross-reference: PRO 884-71203 handled via shipment-exception-handler.md 2026-06-01). Pattern flag for next carrier scorecard.

Metrics / Data Points (Sapphire, Q2 2026)

• OTP: 91.2% (contract minimum 93%) — 180 bps below
• OTD: 88.4% (contract minimum 92%) — 360 bps below
• Claims: 3 new in last 30 days; 1 above $50K threshold
• Invoice accuracy: 94.1%; $1,840 in duplicate-detention charges identified in May
• Rate competitiveness: 4 lanes flagged at 8–14% above DAT May spot index; diesel baseline $4.20 vs. current $3.65

Open Issues (PROPOSED + DISCUSSED)

• PROPOSED — Sapphire AI dispatch rollout (Q3 2026, T. Nguyen) expected to lift OTP 200–300 bps. Discussed; no decision on whether we factor this into the renewal pricing conversation. Next decision point: late July, post-Q3 deployment confirmation.
• PROPOSED — 30-day OTP/OTD recovery commitment for Sapphire. T. Nguyen agreed in principle but did not commit to numbers. Next decision point: 2026-06-15 follow-up call (K. Mahoney to schedule with carrier).
• DISCUSSED — MSA renewal (expires 2026-09-30). Parked for the June 30 kickoff per the rollover schedule.

Tensions / Open Disagreements

• Claims disposition on PRO 992-44017 — T. Nguyen pushing back on Sapphire liability; pre-inspection position is that concealed-damage notification at day 11 of 15 is within the window but they want forensic review. Our position (M. Reyes): physical evidence + Geotab log are consistent with in-transit damage; we're not pre-deciding but we're not pre-conceding either. Resolution path: joint inspection 2026-06-04.
• Recovery-commitment numbers — K. Mahoney pushed for a numeric 30-day OTP/OTD commitment; T. Nguyen agreed in principle, declined to commit to numbers in the room. Parked, not resolved.

Compliance / Safety / Financial Flags

• Financial flag (claims_threshold) — PRO 992-44017 at $67K crosses the $50K Tier-1 carrier-review threshold (config — meeting.compliance_flags.claims_threshold). Triggers Q3 carrier-performance-scorecard review path with M. Reyes and K. Mahoney as named co-owners. P. Akande to be looped in if the Thursday inspection lands as Sapphire-liable.
• Financial flag (invoice_variance_threshold) — $1,840 in duplicate-detention charges crosses the $1,000 invoice-variance line (config); routed to P. Akande (CFO) per meeting.escalation_matrix.invoice.

Config-sourced resolutions in this summary

Rollover from Prior Meeting (2026-05-04)

• Closed — Sapphire QBR-style ops review deck (delivered 2026-05-28, 3 days late but accepted)
• At risk → now decided — Joint inspection on PRO 992-44017 (was open as a procedural question; now DECIDED for 2026-06-04)
• Slipped to this cycle — Rate-competitiveness conversation (was a 2026-05-04 mention; now framed as a fuel-surcharge re-baseline action with K. Mahoney owner and 2026-06-08 deadline)

Next Meeting

2026-07-06 (monthly cadence). Prep: scorecard cycle 2026-06-05 results, joint-inspection disposition from 2026-06-04, fuel-surcharge re-baseline status from K. Mahoney, MSA renewal kickoff materials from end of June.

Synthetic example — Sapphire Freight Lines, K. Mahoney / J. Park / L. Suarez / M. Reyes / T. Nguyen / P. Akande / D. Tovar / Halverson Manufacturing contacts, PRO 992-44017 / PRO 884-71203, MSA expiration date, master-agreement clause references, and DAT spot-index numbers are illustrative. DAT is a real freight-rate index vendor; the May spot-index numbers cited are not from a real DAT report.