Skill Details
Runtime
(gpt-5.6)
Example user message
[userMessage]: Manually worked fictional case. Meeting MAP, cutoff 2026-10-20; internal reviewer REVIEWER. Sources T1 transcript: L10 CHAIR: "Option B is adopted for the pilot only, if TEST signs off." L11 RAE: "I will prepare the checklist by Friday, after the test." L12 CHAIR: "Thanks." N1 notes L3: "B approved for full launch; Rae checklist due Oct23." Prior ledger P1 D7: pilot B conditional on TEST sign-off (T1:L10); C4: RAE prepare checklist by Friday after test (T1:L11). Supplied rule R1: CHAIR records pilot-option adoption; an owner may amend their own due-date phrase by explicit correction referencing the item. M1 correction L2 RAE: "For C4, replace Friday with Oct26; after the test still applies." No calendar interpretation convention, test result or launch approval supplied. Reconcile; do not send anything.
Example agent response
Manually worked fictional illustration, not model output.
### 1. Boundary and readiness
PARTIAL_RECONCILIATION. MAP at 2026-10-20 cutoff; audience internal, reviewer REVIEWER. R1 supplies CHAIR's pilot-option role and a scoped owner correction convention. Only T1 excerpts, N1 and M1 supplied; completeness and actual test sign-off unverified.
### 2. Source register and conflict map
T1:L10-L12 records a pilot condition and an undertaking. N1:L3 expands the scope to full launch and resolves Friday to Oct23 without supplied support. Hold N1's full-launch and exact-date claims; no general notes/transcript precedence supplied. P1 contains D7/C4. M1:L2 explicitly targets C4 under R1. No exact repeated record requiring removal.
### 3. Candidate classification ledger
D7 | pilot Option B if TEST signs off | DECISION | CONDITIONAL | T1:L10, P1:D7 | CHAIR adoption under R1 | sign-off UNKNOWN.
C4 | RAE prepare checklist by Friday after test | COMMITMENT | CONDITIONAL | T1:L11, P1:C4 | RAE's explicit undertaking | completion UNKNOWN; due phrase subject to M1 correction.
N-D1 (draft ID) | full launch B | CONFLICT | CONFLICTED | N1:L3 versus T1:L10 | full-launch acceptance absent | hold scope expansion.
N-C1 (draft ID) | Oct23 exact due date | CONFLICT | CONFLICTED | N1:L3 versus T1:L11 | no derivation convention | hold date claim.
### 4. Decision and commitment view
D7 remains pilot only, conditional on TEST sign-off; not a launch approval. C4 is RAE's undertaking to prepare the checklist, dependent on the test. Original due wording Friday remains in history; proposed current due wording Oct26 comes only from M1:L2 under R1. No year/timezone inferred for Oct26. Neither test completion nor checklist completion is established.
### 5. Amendment delta and retained history
C4 due wording: Friday (P1:C4/T1:L11) -> Oct26 (M1:L2). APPLY_TO_DRAFT under R1: exact target and same-owner correction supplied. Keep owner RAE, action prepare checklist and dependency after the test unchanged. Keep prior Friday wording and source. Oct23 from N1 is not adopted. D7 has no supported scope amendment; HOLD proposed full-launch expansion. These are suggested draft edits, not a system update.
### 6. Human review queue
REVIEWER: resolve N1's full-launch claim against a source explicitly adopting that scope, or correct the note. Confirm the complete calendar date/timezone if operationally required; current exact date UNKNOWN. Obtain actual TEST sign-off evidence before treating the condition as met. Confirm M1 provenance against the supplied record before using the revised ledger. No question sent or task assigned.
### 7. Fidelity and authority checks
T1/N1/M1/P1 locations retained; scoped acceptance, explicit undertaking and amendment target shown. Pilot/test limits retained. Unsupported full launch and Oct23 excluded. Source coverage and condition fulfillment UNKNOWN. R1 supports a draft correction only within the supplied convention. Human review required; draft preparation only.
By purchasing this skill, you agree to our terms of service
GPT-5.6
Reconcile meeting notes, transcript excerpts and corrections into a source-linked decision and commitment ledger. Separate proposals from explicit acceptance, preserve conditions, and show what a supported amendment changes. Includes two manually worked fictional examples. Internal review only; no task assignment, approvals or sending.
...more
Added 1 hour ago
