meeting-feedback

Quick Start

Tell me:

1. Which meeting are you rating? (name, date, and who ran it)
2. Did it achieve its goal? (yes/no/partially)
3. 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

- [ ]