Quick Start
Tell me:
- Which meeting are you rating? (name, date, and who ran it)
- Did it achieve its goal? (yes/no/partially)
- What's the one thing you'd change?
I'll walk you through a structured evaluation, score the meeting across 5 dimensions, check for trends if this is a recurring meeting, and give you specific recommendations.
Shortcut: /meeting-feedback [meeting name] -- 3/5, pre-read was late -- and I'll build the full assessment.
Meeting Feedback Skill
Evaluate meeting effectiveness and identify improvements. Quick retrospective to make future meetings better.
When to Use This Skill
- Immediately after important meetings (within 10 minutes)
- After recurring meetings (to improve cadence)
- When a meeting felt unproductive (diagnose what went wrong)
- For team retrospectives on meeting culture
Quick Feedback
Use after any meeting:
Meeting: [Meeting name]
Date: [Date]
⭐ Rating: [1-5 stars]
What worked:
- [One thing that was effective]
What didn't:
- [One thing that was wasteful]
One change for next time:
- [Specific improvement]
Full Feedback
Use after high-stakes or recurring meetings:
Step 1: Meeting Details
Meeting: [Name]
Date: [Date]
Duration: [Scheduled time] → [Actual time]
Attendees: [Number of people]
Owner: [Who ran it]
Step 2: Objectives Assessment
## Did We Achieve the Goal?
Original purpose: [What the agenda said]
✅ / ❌ Goal achieved?
If no:
- What was missing? [Explanation]
- What blocked us? [Blocker]
Step 3: Effectiveness Scoring
Rate each dimension (1-5 scale) using these scoring anchors:
## Effectiveness Scores
### 1. Preparation (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No agenda shared, attendees didn't know the purpose
2 - Agenda existed but was vague or shared less than 1 hour before
3 - Clear agenda shared day-before, most attendees came prepared
4 - Detailed agenda with pre-reads linked, all attendees prepared
5 - Pre-reads reviewed by all, discussion started at full speed from minute one
- Pre-read sent on time?
- Attendees came prepared?
- Agenda was clear?
### 2. Time Management (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - Started 10+ min late, ran over by 15+ min, no time for decisions
2 - Started late or ran over, some agenda items skipped
3 - Started roughly on time, mostly followed agenda, ended within 5 min of scheduled
4 - Started on time, all agenda items covered, ended on time
5 - Started on time, agenda covered with time to spare, ended early or used extra time for bonus discussion
- Started on time?
- Stayed on agenda?
- Ended on time?
### 3. Participation (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - One person talked the entire time, multiple attendees were silent, wrong people in room
2 - Two or three people dominated, several attendees disengaged or multitasking
3 - Most people contributed at least once, some imbalance in airtime
4 - Balanced discussion, facilitator drew out quiet voices, all key perspectives heard
5 - Every attendee contributed meaningfully, active listening evident, diverse perspectives surfaced and built upon
- Right people in room?
- Everyone contributed?
- No one dominated?
### 4. Decisions (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No decisions made, unclear who had authority, meeting ended with "let's discuss more"
2 - Decision was vaguely reached but not stated explicitly, rationale unclear
3 - Decision made and stated aloud, decision-maker was clear, but rationale not documented
4 - Decision made with clear rationale, dissent captured, communicated to stakeholders
5 - Decision made using structured process (options evaluated, criteria applied), rationale documented, dissent recorded, communication plan in place
- Clear decision-maker?
- Decision was made?
- Rationale documented?
### 5. Action Items (1-5): ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Scoring anchors:
1 - No action items captured, vague "we should do X" statements, no owners
2 - Some action items noted but missing owners or deadlines
3 - Action items listed with owners, but deadlines vague ("next week" instead of specific dates)
4 - All action items have specific owners and due dates, sent to attendees within 2 hours
5 - Action items with owners, dates, and success criteria; tracked in project management tool; follow-up mechanism confirmed
- Clear next steps?
- Owners assigned?
- Due dates set?
**Overall Score:** [Average] / 5
Step 4: What Worked
## What Worked Well
✅ [Strength 1]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
✅ [Strength 2]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
✅ [Strength 3]
- Why it worked: [Explanation]
- Repeat next time: Yes/No
Step 5: What Didn't Work
## What Didn't Work
❌ [Problem 1]
- Impact: [How it hurt the meeting]
- Root cause: [Why it happened]
- Fix for next time: [Specific change]
❌ [Problem 2]
- Impact: [How it hurt the meeting]
- Root cause: [Why it happened]
- Fix for next time: [Specific change]
Step 6: Meeting Smells
Common antipatterns - check for these:
## Meeting Smells (Check all that apply)
[ ] **Status report meeting**
- People just shared updates (could've been async)
- Fix: Send updates in doc, use meeting for decisions
[ ] **Too many people**
- 10+ attendees, most silent
- Fix: Required vs optional attendees, record for others
[ ] **Rehashing decisions**
- Revisiting previously made choices
- Fix: Document decisions, share context better
[ ] **No clear owner**
- Unclear who was driving the meeting
- Fix: Assign meeting owner in agenda
[ ] **Presentation, not discussion**
- Someone read slides for 30+ minutes
- Fix: Send deck as pre-read, meeting for Q&A only
[ ] **Meeting to schedule another meeting**
- No decision, just agreed to meet again
- Fix: Make decision now or cancel
[ ] **Hidden agenda**
- Real topic emerged mid-meeting
- Fix: Be explicit about purpose upfront
[ ] **No pre-read**
- First 20 min wasted on context-setting
- Fix: Send materials 24 hours before
[ ] **Action items unclear**
- Vague next steps, no owners
- Fix: Use action item template with owners + dates
Step 7: Recommendations
## Recommendations for Next Time
### Must Change
🔴 [Critical fix 1]: [Specific action]
🔴 [Critical fix 2]: [Specific action]
### Should Change
🟡 [Important fix 1]: [Specific action]
🟡 [Important fix 2]: [Specific action]
### Could Change
🟢 [Nice-to-have 1]: [Specific action]
Step 8: Meeting Continuation Decision
## Should This Meeting Continue?
For recurring meetings:
✅ Keep as-is: Meeting is working well
🔄 Keep with changes: Meeting is valuable but needs fixes
⏸️ Pause: Revisit in [X weeks/months]
❌ Cancel: Not providing value, eliminate
If keeping:
- Frequency: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Duration: [Current] → [Recommended]
- Attendees: [Add/remove who?]
- Format: [What changes to agenda/structure?]
Output Format
# Meeting Feedback: [Meeting Name]
**Date:** [Date] | **Duration:** [X min] | **Attendees:** [Count]
---
## Overall Assessment
**Rating:** ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4/5)
**Goal achieved?** ✅ Yes / ❌ No
---
## Effectiveness Breakdown
| Dimension | Score | Notes |
| --------------- | ---------- | --------------------- |
| Preparation | ⭐⭐⭐ | Pre-read sent late |
| Time Management | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Started/ended on time |
| Participation | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Good discussion |
| Decisions | ⭐⭐⭐ | Decision unclear |
| Action Items | ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ | Clear owners |
**Overall:** 4.0 / 5
---
## What Worked
✅ **[Strength 1]**
- [Why it worked]
✅ **[Strength 2]**
- [Why it worked]
---
## What Didn't Work
❌ **[Problem 1]**
- Impact: [Consequence]
- Fix: [Specific change]
❌ **[Problem 2]**
- Impact: [Consequence]
- Fix: [Specific change]
---
## Meeting Smells Detected
- [ ]