Capability template for executive and office support
Meeting agenda, notes and follow-ups
Whoever runs the meeting walks in with an agenda where every topic has an outcome and a time, and walks out with a one-page record: what was decided, who owns each action and by when, and what is still open. Nothing reaches anyone until that person has read it and sends it.
The outcome
Every meeting you run ends in decisions and owners, on one page, the same day. People arrive knowing what will be decided and what to read first. They leave with their own actions in writing, each with a date. Next week’s meeting opens on what was promised, so nothing is discussed twice.
The record is not a transcript. It leaves out who argued what and keeps what the room settled. Where the notes show an action with no owner, two owners or no date, the capability says so and asks you. It never picks a name or a date for you, and it never sends, invites or updates anything.
Who starts the work, and when
The person who runs the meeting starts it: a team lead, a project manager, an office manager, a chief of staff or an owner. They run it twice. The first time is a day or two before the meeting, with the topics. The second is straight after, with the notes, while everyone still remembers what they agreed to.
An executive assistant or coordinator can run it for them. The person who ran the meeting still reads the record and sends it.
What they supply
- Before the meeting: the meeting’s name, date, start time and length; who is coming; the topics, each with who leads it and roughly how long it needs; and the actions still open from last time.
- After the meeting: the notes, typed or pasted in whatever shape they were taken, from one note-taker or several.
- Once: how long before a meeting reading goes out, and who receives the follow-up.
No calendar, mailbox or meeting tool is connected. Everything is pasted in by a person.
What comes out
- A draft agenda. Decisions first, a time for every topic, reading to do beforehand, last time’s open actions and five minutes at the end to read every action back. If the topics do not fit the time, it says by how much and proposes the smallest change.
- A meeting record. Decisions, actions with one owner and a date each, parked items with what brings them back, open questions, and where last time’s actions stand.
- A list of what to settle. Every gap in the notes, as a question for the person who ran the meeting.
- A follow-up draft. One message for everyone invited, marked not ready while any gap is open.
A good record can be read in two minutes by someone who was not there, and every line in it traces to the notes.
An invented example
Illustrative example with invented data. Brackenfold Mechanical is an invented 40-person heating and cooling contractor. The people, figures and jobs are invented too. Priya, the operations manager, runs the weekly operations meeting. She uses the capability twice: on Friday 30 October 2026 with her topics, and on Tuesday 3 November straight after the meeting with her notes.
Settings used: reading goes out one working day before the meeting; the closing read-back takes 5 minutes; the follow-up goes to everyone invited.
Before the meeting
What Priya supplied
Today is Fri 30 Oct 2026.
Weekly operations meeting Tue 3 Nov 2026, 9:00, 45 min.
Me (Priya, ops manager), Marcus (service manager), Elena (install manager),
Tom (warehouse lead), Jo (office manager).
Topics:
- Winter on-call rota - need to pick between 1-week and 2-week rotations. Marcus. 15 min
- Van 7 - repair or replace? Quote is $6,200 to repair. Tom. 10 min
- Install backlog update. Elena. 10 min
- New scheduling software
- Parts returns - Tom wants to talk about it. 10 min
Open from last time (27 Oct):
- Jo: send revised call-out price sheet to dispatch - due 30 Oct
- Elena: confirm crane date for the Larch Street job - due 2 Nov
- Marcus: order two CO monitors - due 6 Nov
What came back
DRAFT AGENDA: Weekly operations meeting
Tuesday 3 November 2026, 9:00 to 9:45 (45 minutes). Run by: Priya (operations manager).
Invited: Marcus (service manager), Elena (install manager), Tom (warehouse lead), Jo (office manager).
To settle before this goes out: 3
1. The topics do not fit. Four timed topics take 45 minutes and the read-back takes 5: 50 minutes
in a 45-minute meeting, 5 over. Proposal: the install backlog update only informs, so Elena
sends it in writing and it comes off the agenda. The agenda below shows that proposal applied.
Say if you would rather change something else.
2. "Parts returns" has no outcome. What should the meeting settle: a new process, who owns
returns, or something else?
3. "New scheduling software" has no outcome, no lead and no time. It is left off. Add them and it
goes on.
Read before the meeting, sent by Monday 2 November:
- Install backlog update, in writing (Elena)
1. 9:00 to 9:15 (15 min). Winter on-call rota. Decide: one-week or two-week rotations. Lead: Marcus.
2. 9:15 to 9:25 (10 min). Van 7. Decide: repair at $6,200 or replace. Lead: Tom.
3. 9:25 to 9:35 (10 min). Parts returns. Discuss: [outcome needed]. Lead: Tom.
9:35 to 9:40 (5 min). Spare.
4. 9:40 to 9:45 (5 min). Read-back. Each decision and action said back to the room with who owns
it and when it is due, then the open actions below. Lead: Priya.
Open from last time (27 October):
- Send revised call-out price sheet to dispatch. Owner: Jo. Due 30 October.
- Confirm crane date for the Larch Street job. Owner: Elena. Due 2 November.
- Order two CO monitors. Owner: Marcus. Due 6 November.
Note-taking key: D decision. A action, owner and due date. P parked. Q question. F fact.
Draft for Priya. Nothing has been sent and no invitation has been changed.
Priya answered the second question (“agree who owns returns and what the process is”), left the scheduling software for another week and sent the agenda herself.
After the meeting
What Priya supplied
The agenda she sent (the one above, with her answer on parts returns) and these notes:
Today is Tue 3 Nov 2026. My notes:
ops mtg 3 nov - all there except Jo (out sick), started 9:05
rota - went with 2 week rotations, starts 16 Nov. Marcus to publish the rota by Fri. Elena not
happy about install techs being on it - agreed install techs only cover weekends, revisit after
January
van 7 - Tom says quote went up to 6,800 after they opened it up. not deciding today, need a
replacement price to compare. someone needs to get a lease quote
parts returns - $4k of unreturned parts sitting in the warehouse, some past the supplier's 30 day
window. Tom + Marcus to sort out a process. need to know what the supplier will still take back -
Tom to call them this week
price sheet - Jo not here, don't know if sent
crane - Elena confirmed, 12 Nov
CO monitors - Marcus ordered, arriving next week
Elena: backlog is 23 jobs, 3 waiting on permits
do we need a second dispatcher for winter? nobody had an answer
What came back
MEETING RECORD: Weekly operations meeting
Tuesday 3 November 2026. Run by: Priya. Present: Marcus, Elena, Tom. Absent: Jo.
Source: Priya's notes, supplied 3 November.
To settle before this goes out: 5
1. A2 has no owner and no date. Who gets the lease quote, and by when?
2. A3 says "this week". Which date?
3. A4 names Tom and Marcus. Which one owns it, and by when? The agenda asked the meeting to
agree who owns returns, and the notes do not say.
4. Q1 has nobody finding the answer. Who, and by when?
5. Jo's price sheet: the notes do not say whether it was sent. Ask Jo.
Decisions
D1. Winter on-call runs on two-week rotations, starting 16 November. Decided by: not stated in
the notes.
D2. Install technicians cover weekends only on the on-call rota. To be looked at again after
January. Decided by: not stated in the notes.
Actions
A1. Publish the winter on-call rota. Owner: Marcus. Due: Friday 6 November ("by Fri").
A2. Get a lease quote for a replacement van. OWNER NEEDED. DATE NEEDED.
A3. Call the supplier and find out which unreturned parts it will still take back. Owner: Tom.
DATE NEEDED ("this week").
A4. Set out a process for parts returns. ONE OWNER NEEDED: Tom or Marcus. DATE NEEDED.
Parked
P1. Van 7, repair or replace. Not decided: the repair quote rose from $6,200 to $6,800 and there
is no replacement price to compare. Comes back when: the lease quote (A2) is in.
Open questions
Q1. Is a second dispatcher needed for winter? Who finds out: NEEDED. By when: NEEDED.
Open from last time (27 October)
- Send revised call-out price sheet to dispatch. Owner: Jo. Due 30 October. Not known: Jo was
absent. Due date passed.
- Confirm crane date for the Larch Street job. Owner: Elena. Due 2 November. Done: confirmed
for 12 November.
- Order two CO monitors. Owner: Marcus. Due 6 November. Done: ordered, arriving next week.
For the record
- The meeting started at 9:05.
- $4k of unreturned parts are in the warehouse, some past the supplier's 30-day window.
- The install backlog is 23 jobs, 3 of them waiting on permits.
- The Van 7 repair quote is now $6,800. The agenda said $6,200.
Held back: one item, the reason for an absence. It is left out of the record above and the draft
below.
Next meeting
Date: not stated in the notes. Proposed topics: Van 7 once the lease quote is in (P1); the parts
returns process (A4); the second dispatcher question (Q1); the call-out price sheet.
FOLLOW-UP DRAFT. NOT READY TO SEND: 5 gaps.
To: Marcus, Elena, Tom, Jo
Subject: Weekly operations meeting, 3 November: decisions and actions
Decided:
- Winter on-call runs on two-week rotations from 16 November.
- Install technicians cover weekends only. We look at this again after January.
Actions:
- Marcus: publish the winter on-call rota by Friday 6 November.
- [owner needed]: get a lease quote for a replacement van by [date needed].
- Tom: call the supplier about which unreturned parts it will still take back by [date needed].
- [Tom or Marcus]: set out a process for parts returns by [date needed].
Not decided: Van 7. The repair quote is now $6,800; we decide once we have the lease quote.
Still open: whether we need a second dispatcher for winter [who finds out, by when]; whether the
revised call-out price sheet, due 30 October, has gone to dispatch [Jo to say].
If any of this is not what you agreed to, tell Priya today.
Draft for Priya. Nothing has been sent and no record has been changed.
Priya settled the five gaps with Tom, Marcus and Jo that morning, gave the answers to the assistant, read the updated record and sent the follow-up from her own mailbox.
Where it fits
- Executive and office support: the leadership meeting, the staff meeting and every meeting an assistant prepares for someone else.
- Project and delivery: the weekly project meeting, where an action without an owner becomes a late milestone.
- Professional services: internal team and practice meetings, where senior time is the most expensive thing in the room.
- Construction: the weekly operations or site coordination meeting, with trades, dates and equipment that depend on each other.
- Software technology: planning and review meetings that end with a clear list of who does what.
- Nonprofits: staff and committee meetings where volunteers need their actions in writing.
- Established businesses: standing meetings that have run for years and deserve a sharper shape.
What has to change for your company
Decide which meetings use it first; a weekly meeting with the same people is the best start. Set how far ahead reading goes out and how long the closing read-back takes. Agree who receives the follow-up, including people who were invited and absent. Name the subjects that stay out of a circulated record, such as an individual’s pay, performance or health. Choose where the record is kept so next week’s agenda can pick up the open actions. It runs in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini; decide which notes the assistant may be given.
What has been checked
Fully Powered AI wrote this capability template. It was editorially reviewed on 9 November 2026. It was tried on its invented example in Claude on 9 November 2026, in two runs; the instructions were corrected between them, and the record of the second run is published with the template. It has not yet been tested in a client environment. It has not yet been tested as a packaged version in ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Gemini.
Testing in your environment means running it on the notes of three or four past meetings whose outcomes you already know, plus hard cases written in advance: an action nobody took, a topic that was talked about and not decided, two note-takers who disagree, an agenda that does not fit its time. The person who ran each meeting checks every decision and owner against what happened. Pilot acceptance-test preparation sets those cases up, and what we test before we call an AI workflow ready describes the record we keep.
The full capability template
Everything above is the outline. The complete capability template is the working version: the roles, the inputs, the procedure, the exceptions and stop conditions, the output format, the reviewer checklist, the acceptance tests, the instructions for an AI assistant and what to customize for your company. It comes with a download and the link to its folder in Fully Powered’s public repository.
Free with an account. Sign in by email: no password and no card.
Next step
Bring a real piece of this work to a call. We’ll walk through what it takes to fit this capability to your rules, prove it on your work and put it in the hands of the roles that own it.