Board Meeting

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

.codex/skills/a11y-audit

.codex/skills/ab-test-setup

.codex/skills/account-executive

.codex/skills/ad-creative

.codex/skills/aeo

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 6e3fcbdbb5cf · 19 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publisherborghei GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source folderborghei/Claude-Skills/c-level-advisor/board-meetingThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceNOASSERTIONAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict6e3fcbdbb5cfA new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 12 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its 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…

---
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
  author: borghei
  category: c-level
  domain: board-protocol
  updated: 2026-03-09
  frameworks:
    - 6-phase-protocol
    - two-layer-memory
    - independent-contributions
    - groupthink-prevention
    - synthesis-framework
    - decision-extraction
  triggers:
    - board meeting
    - executive deliberation
    - strategic decision
    - multi-perspective
    - structured deliberation
    - convene the board
    - C-suite meeting
    - executive council
    - founder review
    - decision extraction
    - multi-agent deliberation
    - need all perspectives
    - complex decision
---
# 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 Domain | Activate | Exclude |
|-------------|----------|---------|
| Market expansion | CEO, CMO, CFO, CRO, COO | CTO (unless tech expansion) |
| Product direction | CEO, CPO, CTO, CMO | CFO (unless budget question) |
| Hiring / org | CEO, CHRO, CFO, COO | CMO, CTO (unless their teams) |
| Pricing | CMO, CFO, CRO, CPO | CTO, CHRO |
| Technology | CTO, CPO, CFO, CISO | CMO, CRO |
| Fundraising | CEO, CFO, CRO | CISO, CHRO |
| Security incident | CEO, CTO, CISO, COO | CMO, CRO |
| M&A | CEO, 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

| Role | Technique | How It Works |
|------|-----------|-------------|
| CEO | Tree of Thought | Explore 3 possible futures, evaluate each |
| CFO | Chain of Thought | Show the math, step by step |
| CMO | Recursion of Thought | Draft -> self-critique -> refine |
| CPO | First Principles | Decompose to fundamental user needs |
| CRO | Chain of Thought | Pipeline math must be explicit |
| COO | Step by Step | Map the operational process |
| CTO | Analyze then Act | Research -> analyze -> recommend |
| CISO | Risk-Based | Probability x Impact for every option |
| CHRO | Empathy + Data | Human 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

| Check | Question |
|-------|----------|
| Suspicious consensus | Where did agents agree too easily? |
| Shared assumptions | What assumptions are shared but unvalidated? |
| Missing voice | Who is not in the room? (customer voice? front-line ops?) |
| Unmentioned risk | What risk has nobody mentione

Excerpt, first 6,000 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills
git -C Claude-Skills checkout 6e3fcbdbb5cf

Works in

1. 2026-10-19
   !CAUTION B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 6e3fcbdbb5cf

Questions about Board Meeting

• github.com/borghei/Claude-Skills/tree/main/c-level-advisor/board — the audited source at commit 6e3fcbdbb5cf and every finding aboveObserved · 19 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology