Actionable Meeting Log Extractor
Turn raw meeting notes into a precise log of decisions, actions, owners, deadlines, risks, and open questions.
Customise & copy
Add the context you have. The prompt updates as you work.
Paste the transcript or note dump exactly as available.
List names if they are not already clear in the meeting text.
Add the project, team, or purpose when available.
Use this to interpret relative deadlines.
Live prompt
4 fieldsExtract a precise, actionable meeting log from the source material below. Separate confirmed outcomes from discussion, speculation, and unresolved matters. Do not summarize the meeting or include greetings, filler, an introduction, or a conclusion. Meeting context or goal: {{meeting_context}} Attendees: {{attendees}} Current date: {{current_date}} Raw transcript or notes: {{meeting_text}} Return exactly these sections in this order: CONFIRMED DECISIONS | Description | Owner | Deadline | Status | Evidence/Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| ACTION ITEMS AND COMMITMENTS | Description | Owner | Deadline | Status | Evidence/Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS | Question or issue | Owner | Deadline | Status | Evidence/Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| DEPENDENCIES AND RISKS | Dependency or risk | Owner | Deadline | Status | Evidence/Notes | |---|---|---|---|---| Extraction rules: - Include decisions, unresolved questions, commitments, actions, owners, deadlines, dependencies, and risks only when supported by the source. - Put an item in CONFIRMED DECISIONS only when the notes clearly show agreement, approval, or a final choice. Keep proposals and general discussion out of that section. - Capture owners and deadlines when explicitly stated or clearly implied. If unavailable, write “Unassigned” or “Not specified”; never invent details. - Resolve relative deadlines such as “next Friday” using the current date. Preserve uncertainty when the date cannot be resolved. - Use concise, specific descriptions. Normalize status to one of: Confirmed, Open, In progress, Blocked, or Not specified. - If a section has no supported items, write “None identified” in its first row. - Preserve important qualifiers and distinguish commitments from suggestions. Use short source wording in Evidence/Notes when it clarifies why an item was extracted.
Proof before you use it
A real example
Tested on gpt-5.6-luna on 2026-09-09
{
"attendees": "Dr. Nneka Okafor, Elena Ruiz, Marcus Lee, Compliance representative",
"current_date": "2025-04-10",
"meeting_text": "Dr. Okafor approved the revised emergency department triage checklist for pilot use on May 6. Elena will train the night-shift nurses by April 28, and Marcus will confirm supply quantities with Procurement by April 25. The barcode medication-scanning question remains unresolved because the vendor has not provided the workflow details. We will not change the patient intake form during this pilot. The pilot depends on the compliance team signing off before May 1.",
"meeting_context": "Hospital emergency department triage checklist pilot"
}A small ritual that works
How to use it
- 01Paste the raw transcript or notes into meeting_text.
- 02Add attendees and meeting context when available.
- 03Enter the current date to resolve relative deadlines.
- 04Review the four tables and make any final edits.
Why it works
The prompt gives the task a narrow extraction scope instead of asking for a general meeting summary. It separates confirmed decisions, commitments, unresolved questions, and dependencies or risks into dedicated tables, which helps preserve distinctions that are often blurred in raw notes. The evidence column creates a direct link between each extracted item and the source wording. Explicit rules for owners, deadlines, status labels, relative dates, uncertainty, and empty sections reduce improvisation and make the requested format predictable. The four input fields also provide useful context: the raw meeting material is primary, while attendees, meeting purpose, and current date support attribution and date interpretation.
Where it fails
The structure cannot reliably resolve ambiguity that the source material itself does not settle. Statements with unclear ownership, tentative agreement, incomplete dates, overlapping action items, or conflicting passages may still require interpretation even with the supplied rules. Relative deadlines depend on a usable current date, and the distinction between an unresolved question and a dependency or risk may remain subjective when the notes do not label it clearly. The fixed tables also leave limited room for nuances that do not fit their columns.
Customisation tips
Adjust the section names and table columns to match the meeting type. For product planning, add fields such as milestone, priority, or affected area; for incident reviews, add severity, impact, and remediation status. Expand the allowed status values if the workflow needs labels such as At risk, Cancelled, or Ready for review. If accountability matters, require a named owner rather than allowing Unassigned. If date precision matters, define a standard format and specify how to handle time zones. You can also add a rule for conflicting statements, such as preserving both claims and marking the conflict for follow-up.
Watch-outs
- The prompt permits clearly implied owners and deadlines, so decide whether that level of inference is appropriate for your records.
- The current date is required because relative deadlines such as next Friday cannot be normalized without it.
- Evidence/Notes is intended to preserve supporting wording, not to replace the source or become a full transcript.
- A single item may relate to more than one category, so the extraction rules should be applied consistently when a commitment is also a dependency or risk.
Works in
Was this useful?
Submit your variation
If your version helps, it may be published with your name and a link back to you.
Related prompts
Want to make AI useful across your team? Explore Atul's training.