Agent skill

Board Meeting

by borghei in borghei/Claude-Skills

Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink.

MITAuto-check passedAgent Workflows

Install Board Meeting

skills CLI
$ npx skills add borghei/Claude-Skills --skill board-meeting -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install borghei/Claude-Skills board-meeting --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/c-level-advisor/board-meeting .claude/skills/board-meeting && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
board-meeting
GitHub stars
891
Token cost
~4.1k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,308 words
Files
4 (incl. scripts)
Skills in repo
354
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink.

  • Works in 6 steps: Context Gathering → Independent Contributions (ISOLATED) → Critic Analysis → …
  • Making major strategic decisions
  • SKILL.md covers Keywords, Clarify First, The 6-Phase Protocol and Failure Mode Reference, plus 8 more sections
  • Runs Python scripts from its folder; calls python

What it does

Board Meeting is an agent skill from borghei/Claude-Skills. Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink. Use when making major strategic decisions or resolving cross-functional disagreements.

Its SKILL.md is about 4.1k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 4 other files, including scripts (for example `scripts/complexity_scorer.py`, `scripts/decision_tracker.py` and `scripts/meeting_simulator.py`).

It sits in Agent Workflows. The repository describes itself as: 385 AI skills, 77 expert agents, and 900 stdlib Python tools for every team: engineering, PM, marketing, C-level, compliance, business ops, research, and a LinkedIn toolkit… The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Making major strategic decisions
  • Resolving cross-functional disagreements

Example prompts

  • “/board-meeting”

Requirements

  • Python 3

Workflow steps

6 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Context Gathering
  2. Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
  3. Critic Analysis
  4. Synthesis
  5. Founder Review
  6. Decision Extraction

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit 4a698e8. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Ships 3 files in scripts/ (Python), which the agent can run.

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • python

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Board Meeting loads about 4.1k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 59 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,308 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~59
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~4.1k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); the scripts in this folder are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from borghei/Claude-Skills at commit 4a698e8, republished under its MIT licence (© borghei). 1,308 words, ~4,056 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/board-meeting/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
board-meeting
description
Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink. Use when making major strategic decisions or resolving cross-functional disagreements.
license
MIT + Commons Clause
metadata.version
2.0.0
metadata.author
borghei
metadata.category
c-level
metadata.domain
board-protocol
metadata.updated
2026-03-09
metadata.frameworks
6-phase-protocol, two-layer-memory, independent-contributions, groupthink-prevention, synthesis-framework, decision-extraction
metadata.triggers
board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, multi-perspective, structured deliberation, convene the board, C-suite meeting, executive council…

Board Meeting Protocol

Structured multi-agent deliberation that prevents groupthink, captures minority views, and produces clean, actionable decisions. Every phase has a purpose, a format, and rules that cannot be skipped.

Keywords

board meeting, executive deliberation, strategic decision, C-suite, multi-agent, founder review, decision extraction, independent perspectives, groupthink prevention, synthesis, critic analysis, structured deliberation


Clarify First

Before generating, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume:

  • The exact decision to be made (stated in one sentence) — the whole protocol synthesizes toward a single decision; a fuzzy topic produces a fuzzy synthesis
  • Which roles to activate — the role-activation matrix decides whose perspectives appear in Phase 2; the wrong roster means a missing voice or noise
  • What data and context is available vs. assumed — Phase 2 contributions tag confidence and source, so known facts must be separated from guesses
  • Reversibility and stakes of the decision — drives whether the full 6-phase protocol or an abbreviated advisory meeting is appropriate

Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact.


The 6-Phase Protocol

PHASE 1: Context Gathering
    |
PHASE 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)
    |
PHASE 3: Critic Analysis (Executive Mentor)
    |
PHASE 4: Synthesis (Chief of Staff)
    |
PHASE 5: Founder Review (FULL STOP -- human decides)
    |
PHASE 6: Decision Extraction and Logging

Phase 1: Context Gathering

Purpose: Load all relevant context before anyone contributes.

Step 1: Load company context (if exists)
Step 2: Load decision history (Layer 2 ONLY -- NEVER raw transcripts)
Step 3: Reset session state -- no bleed from previous conversations
Step 4: Present agenda and activated roles
Step 5: Wait for founder confirmation before proceeding
Role Activation Matrix

Not all roles attend every meeting. Select based on topic:

Topic DomainActivateExclude
Market expansionCEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COOCTO (unless tech expansion)
Product directionCEO, CPO, CTO, CMOCFO (unless budget question)
Hiring / orgCEO, CHRO, CFO, COOCMO, CTO (unless their teams)
PricingCMO, CFO, CRO, CPOCTO, CHRO
TechnologyCTO, CPO, CFO, CISOCMO, CRO
FundraisingCEO, CFO, CROCISO, CHRO
Security incidentCEO, CTO, CISO, COOCMO, CRO
M&ACEO, CFO, CTO, CHRO, COO-- (all relevant)

Maximum attendees: 6 roles per meeting. More than 6 creates noise, not insight.


Phase 2: Independent Contributions (ISOLATED)

Critical Rule: No cross-pollination. Each advisor contributes without seeing others' outputs. This is the primary groupthink prevention mechanism.

Contribution Order
1. Research/data gathering (if needed)
2. CMO  -- market perspective
3. CFO  -- financial perspective
4. CEO  -- strategic perspective
5. CTO  -- technical perspective
6. COO  -- operational perspective
7. CHRO -- people perspective
8. CRO  -- revenue perspective
9. CISO -- security/risk perspective
10. CPO -- product perspective
Contribution Format (Strict)

Each advisor's contribution must follow this exact format:

## [ROLE] -- [DATE]

Key Points (maximum 5):
  1. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
  2. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]
  3. [Finding] -- Confidence: [High/Medium/Low] -- Source: [data source]

Recommendation: [Clear position statement]
Confidence: [High / Medium / Low]
Key Assumption: [The one assumption this recommendation depends on]
What Would Change My Mind: [Specific condition or data point]
Reasoning Techniques by Role
RoleTechniqueHow It Works
CEOTree of ThoughtExplore 3 possible futures, evaluate each
CFOChain of ThoughtShow the math, step by step
CMORecursion of ThoughtDraft -> self-critique -> refine
CPOFirst PrinciplesDecompose to fundamental user needs
CROChain of ThoughtPipeline math must be explicit
COOStep by StepMap the operational process
CTOAnalyze then ActResearch -> analyze -> recommend
CISORisk-BasedProbability x Impact for every option
CHROEmpathy + DataHuman impact first, then validate with metrics

Phase 3: Critic Analysis

Purpose: The Executive Mentor receives ALL Phase 2 outputs simultaneously and performs adversarial review.

Critic Checklist
CheckQuestion
Suspicious consensusWhere did agents agree too easily?
Shared assumptionsWhat assumptions are shared but unvalidated?
Missing voiceWho is not in the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?)
Unmentioned riskWhat risk has nobody mentioned?
Domain bleedDid any agent operate outside their domain?
Data qualityWhich claims are backed by data vs. assumption?
ReversibilityHas anyone assessed if this decision can be undone?
Critic Output Format
## CRITIC ANALYSIS

Consensus Assessment:
  [Genuine agreement / Suspicious alignment / Split decision]

Unvalidated Assumptions:
  1. [Assumption shared by multiple advisors but not verified]
  2. [Assumption]

Missing Perspectives:
  - [Voice or data point not represented]

Unmentioned Risks:
  - [Risk nobody raised]

Domain Violations:
  - [If any agent operated outside their domain]

The Uncomfortable Truth:
  [The one thing nobody wants to say but needs to be said]

Phase 4: Synthesis

Purpose: Chief of Staff combines all inputs into a decision-ready format.

Synthesis Structure
## BOARD MEETING SYNTHESIS
Topic: [topic]
Date: [date]
Attendees: [roles]

### Decision Required
[One sentence: what must be decided]

### Perspectives Summary
| Role | Position | Confidence | Key Concern |
|------|----------|-----------|-------------|
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |
| [Role] | [1-line summary] | [H/M/L] | [Top concern] |

### Where They Agree
[2-3 consensus points]

### Where They Disagree
[Named conflicts with each side's reasoning]
[What the disagreement is really about]

### Critic's View
[The uncomfortable truth from Phase 3]

### Recommended Decision
[Clear recommendation with rationale]

### Action Items (if approved)
1. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
2. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]
3. [Action] -- Owner: [role] -- Deadline: [date]

### Your Call
[If you disagree with the recommendation, here are alternatives:]
Option A: [description] -- Trade-off: [what you gain/lose]
Option B: [description] -- Trade-off: [what you gain/lose]

Phase 5: Founder Review

FULL STOP. Wait for the founder. No agent acts beyond this point.

FOUNDER REVIEW

[Paste synthesis above]

Options:
  [A] Approve as recommended
  [M] Modify (specify changes)
  [R] Reject (specify reason)
  [Q] Ask follow-up question to specific role
  [D] Defer decision (specify timeline)
Phase 5 Rules
RuleRationale
Founder corrections override all agent proposalsHuman judgment is final
No pushback on founder decisionsAgents advise, founder decides
30-minute inactivity auto-closes as "pending review"Prevents zombie meetings
Founder can reopen any timeDecisions are not time-locked
Follow-up questions go to specific roleKeeps discussion focused

Phase 6: Decision Extraction

Purpose: After founder approval, extract and log all decisions.

Step 1: Write full transcript to Layer 1
  --> memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md

Step 2: Run conflict detection against existing decisions
  --> Check for DO_NOT_RESURFACE violations
  --> Check for topic contradictions
  --> Check for owner conflicts

Step 3: Surface any conflicts to founder for resolution

Step 4: Append approved decisions to Layer 2
  --> memory/board-meetings/decisions.md

Step 5: Mark rejected proposals with DO_NOT_RESURFACE

Step 6: Confirm to founder:
  "Meeting concluded. Logged: [N] decisions, [M] action items,
   [K] DO_NOT_RESURFACE flags."

Failure Mode Reference

FailureDetectionFix
GroupthinkAll advisors agree without tensionRe-run Phase 2 isolated; force "strongest argument against"
Analysis paralysisDiscussion exceeds 5 points per advisorCap at 5; force recommendation even with Low confidence
BikesheddingDiscussion on minor points, major decisions deferredLog as async action; return to main agenda
Role bleedCFO making product calls, CTO pricingCritic flags in Phase 3; exclude from synthesis
Layer contaminationRaw transcripts loaded in Phase 1Hard rule: decisions.md only. Never raw.
Founder absencePhase 5 timeoutAuto-close as pending. No decisions without founder.
Stale contextCompany context not loadedPhase 1 mandatory context check
Missing roleKey perspective not activatedChief of Staff reviews topic against routing matrix

Meeting Cadence

TriggerMeeting TypeTypical Duration
Scheduled quarterlyFull strategic review2-3 hours
Complexity score >= 8On-demand strategic1-2 hours
Cross-functional conflictResolution meeting1 hour
Crisis or urgent decisionEmergency session30-60 minutes
Founder requestAny topicVaries

Show full SKILL.md (540 more words)Show less

Red Flags

  • Board meetings consistently produce no decisions -- meeting is theater
  • Same topic discussed in 3+ meetings -- decision avoidance
  • Phase 2 contributions all align perfectly -- isolation was breached or topic is trivial
  • No Phase 3 (critic) conducted -- groupthink risk
  • Founder skipping Phase 5 -- decisions without accountability
  • Decisions logged but never reviewed -- decision logger not functioning
  • Meeting attendees always include all roles -- topic selection not working

Output Artifacts

RequestDeliverable
"Convene the board on [topic]"Full 6-phase protocol execution
"Quick advisory meeting"Abbreviated: Phase 1-2-4-5 (skip critic)
"Review a past meeting"Load Layer 1 raw transcript (explicit request only)
"What did we decide about [topic]?"Search Layer 2 decision history
"Resume a pending meeting"Reload Phase 5 with pending synthesis

Tool Reference

meeting_simulator.py

Validates role activation, contribution completeness, and phase sequencing.

bash
# Simulate with defaults
python scripts/meeting_simulator.py

# Specify topic and complexity
python scripts/meeting_simulator.py --topic "Series B timing" --type fundraising --complexity 9

# Specify activated roles
python scripts/meeting_simulator.py --type m_and_a --roles CEO CFO CTO CHRO

# List all topic types and required roles
python scripts/meeting_simulator.py --list-topics

# JSON output
python scripts/meeting_simulator.py --type strategy --json
decision_tracker.py

Tracks board decisions, detects conflicts, flags overdue reviews and actions.

bash
# Track demo decisions
python scripts/decision_tracker.py

# From decision log file
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --input decisions.json

# JSON output
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --json
complexity_scorer.py

Scores decision complexity to determine single/dual/multi-advisor or board routing.

bash
# Score with CLI flags
python scripts/complexity_scorer.py --topic "Market expansion" --domains 2 --reversibility 2 --financial 1 --team 2 --urgency 0

# Add modifiers
python scripts/complexity_scorer.py --topic "Acquisition" --domains 2 --reversibility 2 --financial 2 --team 2 --urgency 1 --modifiers cross_functional external_stakeholders sets_precedent

# JSON output
python scripts/complexity_scorer.py --topic "Pricing change" --json

Troubleshooting

ProblemLikely CauseFix
All advisors agree without any tension in Phase 2Groupthink or trivial topic; isolation may have been breachedRe-run Phase 2 with forced "strongest argument against" from each role
Discussion exceeds 5 points per advisorAnalysis paralysis; no cap enforcedHard cap at 5 key points; force a recommendation even with Low confidence
Phase 5 times out with no founder responseFounder absence or decision avoidanceAuto-close as "pending review" at 30 min; no decisions without founder
Same topic discussed in 3+ meetingsDecision avoidance or new data not surfacedEscalate: force decision or formally defer with stated timeline
Decisions logged but never reviewedDecision logger not integrated into meeting cadenceAdd "previous decisions review" to Phase 1 context loading
Roles operating outside their domainNo critic analysis conducted or critic missed itEnforce Phase 3 critic checklist; flag domain violations explicitly

Success Criteria

  • Every board meeting produces at least 1 logged decision with owner, deadline, and review date
  • Phase 2 contributions are independently generated (zero cross-pollination incidents per quarter)
  • Phase 3 critic analysis identifies at least 1 unvalidated assumption per meeting
  • Founder approval/modification/rejection captured within 30 minutes of synthesis presentation
  • Decision history has zero conflicting active decisions (conflicts detected and resolved)
  • Meeting duration stays within 2 hours for standard strategic reviews, 1 hour for resolution meetings
  • 90%+ of logged decisions have action items completed by their stated deadlines

Scope & Limitations

In Scope: Multi-agent deliberation protocol, role activation matrix, contribution formats, critic analysis, synthesis, decision extraction, decision conflict detection, meeting simulation.

Out of Scope: Actual AI agent orchestration (this is a protocol specification, not runtime code), real-time meeting facilitation, video/audio recording, external board member management.

Limitations: The protocol assumes all advisor contributions are available in text format. Complexity scoring provides routing guidance but cannot account for political dynamics. Decision conflict detection works on exact topic matching -- semantic conflicts across different topics require human judgment.


Integration Points

SkillIntegration
chief-of-staffRoutes questions that score 9-10 complexity into the board meeting protocol
decision-loggerPhase 6 feeds decisions directly into the two-layer decision memory
board-deck-builderBoard deck sections provide pre-read context for Phase 1
executive-mentorPhase 3 critic analysis can be performed by the Executive Mentor skill
ceo-advisor through ciso-advisorAll C-suite advisors contribute independently in Phase 2
strategic-alignmentValidates that meeting decisions align with strategic goals

© borghei, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 3 other files (scripts) in c-level-advisor/board-meeting of borghei/Claude-Skills.

  • SKILL.md
  • scripts/complexity_scorer.py
  • scripts/decision_tracker.py
  • scripts/meeting_simulator.py

Open the folder on GitHubat commit 4a698e8

Compare with similar skills

Board Meeting next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Board Meeting compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Board Meeting this skillborghei/Claude-Skills891—~4.1kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
KapsoLeeroo-AI/kapso121—~642Automated safety check: PassMIT
Edt MCP Tool DescriptionsDitriXNew/EDT-MCP296—~3kAutomated safety check: PassAGPL-3.0
Co MarketingNexus-JPF/note-companion8703 repos~2.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Ads Quickzubair-trabzada/ai-ads-claude268—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Book Ideationrobertguss/claude-code-toolkit124—~2kAutomated safety check: PassProprietary

Similar skills

  • Kapso

    Leeroo-AI/kapso

    Optimize code using KAPSO (Knowledge-Grounded Optimization).

    121 GitHub stars~642 tokensUpdated yesterday
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Edt MCP Tool Descriptions

    DitriXNew/EDT-MCP

    How to size, write and A/B-test the text of a tool — its description and its inputSchema parameter prose — so that cutting it does not cost call quality, and so that a tool that IS getting called…

    296 GitHub stars~3k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Co Marketing

    Nexus-JPF/note-companion

    When the user wants to find co-marketing partners, plan joint campaigns, or brainstorm partnership opportunities.

    870 GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~2.5k tokens
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Ads Quick

    zubair-trabzada/ai-ads-claude

    60-Second Ad Readiness Snapshot — quick assessment without subagents

    268 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 6 mo ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Book Ideation

    robertguss/claude-code-toolkit

    Develop raw book ideas into structured nonfiction book concepts.

    124 GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 24 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed
  • Brand Ideation

    rampstackco/claude-skills

    Generate, evaluate, and narrow brand concepts during early ideation including positioning territories, naming candidates, mood directions, and narrative angles.

    945 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Agent WorkflowsAuto-check passed

More from borghei/Claude-Skills

All 354 skills in this repo
  • Agent Harness

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Test and evaluation harness for AI agents — scenario suites, deterministic replay, regression diffing, cost and latency budgets.

    891 GitHub stars~3.1k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Agents In The Team

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Run delivery when AI coding and ops agents take tickets. An agent skill from borghei/Claude-Skills.

    891 GitHub stars~4.2k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • AI Content Disclosure

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Check AI-generated marketing content and reviews for required disclosures under the EU AI Act, FTC rules and platform AI-label policies.

    891 GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • AI Prototyping

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Idea to AI-generated prototype to customer validation to engineering handoff.

    891 GitHub stars~3.6k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Analytics Engineer

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Analytics engineering across data modeling, dbt, transformation, and semantic layers.

    891 GitHub stars~3.4k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Ansoff Matrix

    borghei/Claude-Skills

    Ansoff Matrix — 4-quadrant framework for growth options: market penetration, market/product development, and diversification.

    891 GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 3 days ago
    Auto-check passed

Questions about Board Meeting

What does Board Meeting do?

Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink. Board Meeting is an agent skill from borghei/Claude-Skills. Multi-agent board meeting protocol running a structured 6-phase deliberation with isolated C-suite contributions to prevent groupthink.

When should I use Board Meeting?

Board Meeting fits situations like: making major strategic decisions; resolving cross-functional disagreements.

How do I install Board Meeting in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add borghei/Claude-Skills --skill board-meeting -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (c-level-advisor/board-meeting in borghei/Claude-Skills) into .claude/skills/board-meeting in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Board Meeting in Codex?

Run `npx skills add borghei/Claude-Skills --skill board-meeting -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (c-level-advisor/board-meeting in borghei/Claude-Skills) into .agents/skills/board-meeting in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Board Meeting in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add borghei/Claude-Skills --skill board-meeting -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/board-meeting, .gemini/skills/board-meeting, .github/skills/board-meeting and .opencode/skills/board-meeting in your project.

What does Board Meeting need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, Board Meeting needs Python for the scripts in its folder and the command-line tools its instructions call (python). Our summary lists: Python 3.

Does Board Meeting access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Board Meeting safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. The check reads SKILL.md only: the scripts in the folder are not scanned, so read them before running anything.

What licence does Board Meeting use?

Board Meeting is published under the MIT licence (declared in SKILL.md). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Board Meeting use?

About 4.1k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 16k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to Board Meeting?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Board Meeting: Kapso (Leeroo-AI/kapso, 121 stars), Edt MCP Tool Descriptions (DitriXNew/EDT-MCP, 296 stars), Co Marketing (Nexus-JPF/note-companion, 870 stars) and Ads Quick (zubair-trabzada/ai-ads-claude, 268 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Board Meeting?

borghei (a GitHub user) maintains it in borghei/Claude-Skills, which has 891 GitHub stars. The repository holds 354 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 7, 2026.

Source: borghei/Claude-Skills on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.