fast-meeting

Installation

SKILL.md

Fast Meeting

Run a fully autonomous meeting with expert personas, then immediately implement the recommended solution, create a merge request or pull request, and post a French description — all without asking the user for confirmation.

Prerequisites

gh (GitHub CLI): required when the project uses GitHub — install from https://cli.github.com or brew install gh
glab (GitLab CLI): required when the project uses GitLab — install from https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/cli or brew install glab

When to Use This Skill

Activate when the user:

Demande un « fast meeting » ou « réunion rapide » sur un sujet
Veut une décision ET une implémentation automatique sans interruption
Dit « fast-meeting » ou « lance un fast meeting sur... »
Veut qu'un sujet soit analysé, décidé et implémenté en une seule commande

Core Principles

1. Full Autonomy

The entire pipeline runs without asking any user questions
Persona selection is automatic based on context analysis
The best course of action is implemented immediately after the meeting
A MR/PR is created automatically on the detected remote (GitLab or GitHub)

2. Speed Over Thoroughness

The meeting is compressed: 2 rounds instead of 3 (opening + convergence)
Personas are limited to 3-4 maximum
The analysis is concise and action-oriented
Implementation starts as soon as the meeting concludes

3. Diverse but Focused Perspectives

Personas are auto-selected based on the subject matter
Each persona brings a genuinely different viewpoint
The meeting converges quickly toward an actionable recommendation

4. Complete Delivery

Code changes are committed on a dedicated branch
A MR/PR is created automatically
The MR/PR description in French summarizes the meeting analysis and implementation

Workflow

Step 0: Worktree Hygiene

Before starting, clean up stale worktrees from previous meetings that may have crashed:

Run git worktree prune to remove stale worktree references
Check git worktree list — if any entries match sibling directories named fast-meeting-* or fm-*:
- Parallel safety: before removing, verify the worktree directory has no active git processes (fuser -s <worktree-path> 2>/dev/null). If the directory is in active use, skip it — it belongs to another running fast-meeting
- Only remove worktrees confirmed to be stale: git worktree remove <path> --force
Also clean up any legacy fast-meeting/* branches: git branch --list 'fast-meeting/*' | xargs -r git branch -D

This ensures a clean starting state without disrupting parallel fast-meeting runs.

Step 1: Gather Context

Read the user's prompt — extract the topic, constraints, and goals
If an issue is referenced (GitLab #123 or GitHub #123):
- Fetch the issue details (description, labels, comments)
- Store the issue reference (number, URL, project) for Steps 8 and 9
If no issue is referenced, note this — an issue may be created later in Step 4b
If code is involved, read relevant files to understand the current state
Detect the remote repository type:
- Run git remote -v to determine if the remote is GitLab or GitHub
- Store this for Step 8 (MR/PR creation)
Identify the decision to make — frame it as a clear one-line question

Output the decision question before proceeding. Example:

"Question: Should we migrate the authentication system from session-based to JWT tokens?"

Step 2: Auto-Select Personas

Automatically select 3-4 personas based on the subject matter. Use these heuristics:

Le sujet concerne...	Personas auto-sélectionnés
Backend / API / base de données	SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle)
Frontend / UI / UX	Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), Figma Fiona (UX/UI), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Sécurité / auth / contrôle d'accès	Paranoid Shug (Sécurité), RGPD Raphaël (DPO), SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Infrastructure / déploiement / CI-CD	Pipeline Mo (DevOps), SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Données / migration / ETL	Schema JB (Data), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Interopérabilité / HL7 / FHIR / HPK	RFC Santiago (PO Interop), HL7 Victor (Dev Interop), SOLID Alex (Backend)
Legacy / Uniface / modernisation	Legacy Larry (Uniface), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), SOLID Alex (Backend)
Tests / qualité / régression	Edge-Case Nico (QA), SOLID Alex (Backend), Pipeline Mo (DevOps)
Produit / fonctionnalité / décision UX	Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), Figma Fiona (UX/UI), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Santé / workflows cliniques	Dr. Workflow Wendy (Santé), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), RGPD Raphaël (DPO)
RGPD / données personnelles / conformité	RGPD Raphaël (DPO), Paranoid Shug (Sécurité), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
BI / tableaux de bord / reporting / finance / comptabilité	Dashboard Estelle (BI Finance), Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), EXPLAIN PLAN Isabelle (DBA Oracle), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
Full-stack / sujet transverse	Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), SOLID Alex (Backend), Sprint Zero Sarah (PO), Edge-Case Nico (QA)

Si le sujet couvre plusieurs domaines, choisir les 3-4 personas les plus pertinents. Toujours inclure Whiteboard Damien (Architecte) pour les décisions techniques. Toujours inclure Sprint Zero Sarah (PO) pour les décisions produit.

Pool complet des personas avec rôles, perspectives et biais : voir reference/personas.md.

Announce the selected personas and their roles before starting the meeting.

Step 3: Run the Fast Meeting

The meeting uses sub-agents to run each persona independently and in parallel. The fast meeting compresses the process into 2 rounds.

IMPORTANT: Use the Agent tool to launch each persona as a separate sub-agent.

Round 1: Position and Recommendation (Parallel Sub-Agents)

Launch one sub-agent per persona in parallel using the Agent tool. Each sub-agent receives:

The decision question from Step 1
All context gathered (issue details, code snippets, constraints)
The persona's identity prompt

Sub-agent prompt template:

You are {name}, a {role}.

Your perspective: {perspective}
Your natural bias: {bias}

You are participating in a fast meeting about: {decision_question}

Context:
{context}

As {name}, provide your position:
1. What is your recommended approach? Be specific and concrete.
2. What are the top 2 risks? Be specific about failure scenarios.
3. What is your preferred implementation strategy in concrete steps?
4. What would you push back on from other typical perspectives?

Stay fully in character. Be concise and actionable — this is a fast meeting.

This is a research task — do NOT write or edit any files.

Launch ALL persona sub-agents in a single message so they run in parallel. Use subagent_type: "general-purpose" and a short description like "Fast persona: {name}".

Collect all positions and present them as quotes:

SOLID Alex (Senior Backend Engineer): "I recommend..."

Anti-Groupthink Check

After collecting Round 1 responses, evaluate the consensus level:

Check if all personas converged on the same approach (same recommendation, no meaningful disagreement)

If consensus is too high (all personas agree on the approach with no pushback):

Launch one additional sub-agent as a devil's advocate, prompted to find the strongest argument against the consensus position

Use this prompt:

You are a devil's advocate in a fast meeting.

All participants agreed on this approach: {consensus_summary}

Your job: find the strongest possible argument AGAINST this consensus.
- What could go wrong that nobody mentioned?
- What assumption are they all making that might be false?
- What alternative did they dismiss too quickly?

Be specific and concrete. Reference real failure scenarios.
This is a research task — do NOT write or edit any files.

Include the dissenting view in the analysis even if the recommendation doesn't change

If there is already meaningful disagreement: proceed directly to Round 2

Round 2: Convergence (Single Synthesis)

After collecting all Round 1 responses, you (the facilitator, not a sub-agent) synthesize:

Points of agreement across personas
Key trade-offs that emerged
The winning recommendation with rationale
Concrete implementation plan (files to change, approach, order of operations)

Do NOT launch a second round of sub-agents. Synthesize directly for speed.

Step 4: Produce the Compact Decision

Write a compact analysis displayed to the user:

## Fast Meeting : [Sujet]

**Question :** [La question de décision]

**Participants :** [Name (Role)] | [Name (Role)] | [Name (Role)]

### Recommandation retenue
[The recommended approach in 2-3 sentences]

### Justification
- [Reason 1]
- [Reason 2]
- [Reason 3]

### Risques et mitigations
- [Risk 1 → Mitigation]
- [Risk 2 → Mitigation]

### Plan d'implémentation
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Step 3]

Step 4b: Ensure Issue Exists

If an issue was already referenced in Step 1, it is already available — skip to Step 5.

If no issue was referenced, create one automatically for traceability — no user prompt, no confirmation. This is consistent with the full-autonomy contract of fast-meeting.

Build the issue from the meeting analysis:
- Title: Short form of the decision question (under 70 chars, in French)
- Description: PO-oriented summary using the template below
Create the issue immediately:
- GitLab: Use glab issue create --title "<title>" --description "<description>"
- GitHub: Use gh issue create --title "<title>" --body "<description>"
- Store the newly created issue number and URL for Steps 8 and 9
- Do not add labels unless you have verified they already exist in the project (list them first)
If issue creation fails (API error, permission denied, no project found): log the error in the Run Summary, proceed without an issue — Steps 8 and 9 will adapt accordingly

Auto-Created Issue Description Template (French — PO / Consultant Oriented)

## Contexte
[Business context derived from the user's prompt — what problem or opportunity triggered this analysis]

## Question analysée
[The decision question from Step 1, framed in business terms]

## Participants
| Expert | Rôle |
|--------|------|
| [Name] | [Role] |
| ... | ... |

## Recommandation
[The recommended approach in 2-3 sentences, focusing on user/business value rather than technical details]

## Risques identifiés
- [Risk 1 in business impact terms → Mitigation]
- [Risk 2 in business impact terms → Mitigation]

---
_Issue créée automatiquement par un fast-meeting IA_

Step 5: Scope Guard

Before implementing, estimate the scope of the recommended changes:

Assess the scope: count the estimated number of files to change, lines of code to add/modify, and whether new dependencies or infrastructure are needed
Apply thresholds:
- Small scope (≤10 files, ≤500 lines, no new infrastructure): proceed to Step 6 normally
- Medium scope (>10 files OR >500 lines): proceed but scope down to the most critical first step only. Add the remaining steps as a checklist in the MR/PR description under a ### Étapes restantes section
- Large scope (multi-service changes, architectural migration, new infrastructure required): abort implementation. Output the meeting analysis from Step 4, and suggest the user run the full /meeting skill for proper planning with validation before implementation
If scoping down: clearly state in the analysis what is being implemented now vs. deferred

Step 6: Create Worktree and Implement

Immediately proceed to implementation without asking the user. This is the key difference from meeting.

Implementation runs in a git worktree, which creates an isolated copy of the repository. The user's working tree is never modified — no stash, no branch switch, no risk of state corruption.

Create the Worktree

Record the current branch for reference (e.g., main)
Determine the branch type based on the meeting recommendation:
- Bug fix → fix/
- New feature → feat/
- Refactoring → refactor/
- Default → feat/
Fetch remote state before checking for collisions:
- Run git fetch origin to ensure branch information is up-to-date
Check for branch name collisions before creating the worktree:
- Run git branch -a and check if <type>/fm-<topic> already exists (locally or as remotes/origin/<type>/fm-<topic>)
- If the branch exists: append a numeric suffix (-2, -3, etc.) until a unique name is found. Do not force-delete existing branches — they may contain reviewed or in-progress work
Create a worktree with a dedicated branch:
- Branch name: <type>/fm-<short-kebab-case-topic> (e.g., feat/fm-jwt-auth-migration, fix/fm-notification-display) — with suffix if collision was detected
- Worktree path: $(git rev-parse --show-toplevel)/../fm-<topic>
- Run: git worktree add ../fm-<topic> -b <type>/fm-<topic>
If worktree creation fails:
- If the error indicates the branch already exists: run git branch -D <type>/fm-<topic> then retry the worktree creation
- If it still fails (disk space, permissions, path length, submodules, or any other reason): abort the implementation pipeline. Output the complete meeting analysis from Step 4, the exact error message, and stop. The user can fix the underlying issue and re-run. Never fall back to stash/checkout — the user's working tree must never be modified

Implement in the Worktree

All file modifications happen inside the worktree path — use the worktree's absolute path for all read/write operations
Implement the changes as described in the implementation plan from Step 4
- Write code, modify files, add tests as needed
- Follow the project's existing conventions and patterns
Stage and commit all changes from within the worktree:
- cd into the worktree path before running git commands
- Use a conventional commit message: feat(<scope>): <description>
- Include Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> in the commit message
- If git commit fails due to a pre-commit hook: analyze the hook output, fix the code to pass the hook, and retry the commit once. If it still fails, treat it like a test failure — push as Draft with the hook error documented in the MR/PR description. Never use --no-verify

Step 7: Test, Push, and Clean Up

Run Tests

After committing, validate the implementation against the project's test suite:

Auto-detect the test runner:
- Check package.json for test, test:unit, test:e2e scripts
- Check for Makefile, pytest.ini, phpunit.xml, or other test config files
- If no test runner is found, skip this step and note "No test suite detected" in the MR/PR description
Run the tests (scoped to affected files/modules if the test runner supports it, otherwise run the full suite)
If tests pass: proceed to push
If tests fail:
- Analyze the failures and attempt one fix cycle (fix the code, re-run tests)
- If tests pass after the fix: amend the commit with the fix and proceed
- If tests still fail after one fix attempt:
  - Mark the MR/PR as Draft (prefix title with Draft:)
  - Add a ### Tests en échec section in the MR/PR description listing the failing tests and error messages
  - Push anyway so the team can review
Include test results summary in the MR/PR description: number of tests run, passed, failed

Push the Branch

Push the branch from within the worktree:
- Run: git push -u origin <type>/fm-<topic> (from the worktree path)
- If push fails (auth error, no remote, permission denied, network issue):
  - Do NOT remove the worktree — the committed work must be preserved
  - Output the worktree path, branch name, and the exact error message
  - Output a manual recovery command: cd <worktree-path> && git push -u origin <branch>
  - Skip Steps 8 and 9 entirely — there is nothing to link to
  - Proceed directly to the Run Summary (Step 10) with push status = "failed"

Clean Up Worktree

Remove the worktree (only after a successful push):
- Return to the original repository path
- Run: git worktree remove ../fm-<topic>
- If removal fails (e.g., uncommitted changes in worktree), run: git worktree remove ../fm-<topic> --force
- Post-cleanup verification: run git worktree list and verify the fast-meeting worktree no longer appears. If it does, output the cleanup command for the user: git worktree remove <path> --force
No restoration needed: the user's working tree was never modified — they remain on their original branch with all their uncommitted changes intact

Step 8: Create the MR/PR

Based on the remote type detected in Step 1:

If GitLab:

Use glab mr create --title "<title>" --description "<description>" --target-branch main to create a merge request with:

Title: Short description (under 70 chars, in English)
Description: The French meeting analysis and implementation summary (see template below)
Issue link: If an issue exists (referenced or created in Step 4b), include Closes #XX in the description to auto-close the issue on merge

If GitHub:

Use gh pr create to create a pull request with:

Title: Short description (under 70 chars, in English)
Body: The French meeting analysis and implementation summary (see template below)
Issue link: If an issue exists (referenced or created in Step 4b), include Closes #XX in the body to auto-close the issue on merge

If MR/PR creation fails:

If the MR/PR creation fails (API timeout, rate limit, authentication, MCP tool error):

Output the remote URL and branch name
Output a pre-formatted manual command the user can paste:
- GitLab: provide the web URL to create the MR manually
- GitHub: gh pr create --head <branch> --title "<title>" --body "<body>"
Include the full MR/PR description text in the conversation output so nothing is lost
Proceed to Step 9 (issue comment) if applicable — the issue comment is still valuable even without the MR/PR link
Record the failure in the Run Summary (Step 10)

MR/PR Description Template (French — Developer / Technically Oriented)

The MR/PR description targets developers reviewing the code. Focus on technical details: what changed, why this approach was chosen technically, and what to watch during review.

## Résumé technique

### Contexte
[Brève description du problème technique ou de la décision d'architecture qui a motivé ces changements]

### Approche retenue
[L'approche technique choisie et pourquoi — patterns utilisés, alternatives considérées et rejetées techniquement]

### Changements implémentés
| Fichier | Modification | Justification technique |
|---------|-------------|------------------------|
| `path/to/file` | [Ce qui a changé] | [Pourquoi ce choix technique] |
| ... | ... | ... |

### Points d'attention pour la revue
- [Point technique à vérifier — ex: gestion d'erreurs, performance, rétrocompatibilité]
- [Impact potentiel sur d'autres modules]
- [Cas limites à valider]

### Tests
- [Résultats des tests : nombre exécutés, passés, échoués]
- [Couverture des cas limites identifiés]

### Prochaines étapes
- [ ] Revue de code par l'équipe
- [ ] Validation des tests
- [ ] Merge après approbation

---
_Implémentation générée automatiquement par IA_

Issue linking: if an issue exists (referenced in Step 1 or created in Step 4b), append Closes #<issue_number> on its own line after the --- separator and before the italic footer. If no issue exists, omit this line entirely.

Step 9: Post to Issue (PO / Consultant Oriented)

Post a Product Owner / consultant oriented comment to the linked issue. This comment targets stakeholders, not developers — focus on business value, user impact, and strategic reasoning rather than technical details.

Issue resolution:

Issue was referenced in Step 1: post the comment on that issue
Issue was created in Step 4b: post the comment on the newly created issue
Issue creation failed in Step 4b: skip this step — log the failure in the Run Summary

Issue Comment Template (French)

## Analyse de réunion rapide

### Question posée
[La question de décision formulée en termes métier]

### Participants
| Expert | Rôle | Position |
|--------|------|----------|
| ... | ... | [Position résumée en termes d'impact métier] |

### Décision retenue
[L'approche recommandée expliquée en termes de valeur utilisateur et impact business]

**Pourquoi cette décision :**
- [Bénéfice utilisateur / métier 1]
- [Bénéfice utilisateur / métier 2]
- [Alignement avec les objectifs produit]

### Risques projet
- [Risque 1 formulé en impact métier → Mitigation]
- [Risque 2 formulé en impact métier → Mitigation]

### Impact
- **Utilisateurs concernés :** [Qui est impacté et comment]
- **Délai estimé :** [Si applicable]
- **Dépendances :** [Autres équipes ou fonctionnalités impactées]

### MR/PR
[Lien vers la MR/PR] — Les détails techniques d'implémentation sont dans la description de la MR/PR.

---
_Analyse générée automatiquement par IA_

Post the comment using the appropriate tool:

GitLab: glab issue note <iid> --message "<comment>"
GitHub: gh issue comment <number> --body "<comment>"

Step 10: Run Summary

Always output a structured run summary at the end of every fast-meeting run, regardless of whether the pipeline succeeded or failed at any step. This provides observability for an autonomous pipeline.

### Fast Meeting — Run Summary
- **Sujet :** [topic]
- **Branche :** `<type>/fm-<topic>`
- **Worktree :** [path] (nettoyé : oui/non)
- **Push :** succès / échec ([erreur si applicable])
- **MR/PR :** [URL] / non créé ([raison si applicable])
- **Tests :** [N exécutés, N passés, N échoués] / non détectés
- **Issue :** liée (#XX) / créée (#XX) / échec de création ([erreur])
- **Commentaire issue :** publié (#XX) / ignoré (pas d'issue)
- **Durée totale :** [durée wall-clock de l'ensemble du pipeline]

If any step failed, the summary must include the failure reason and any manual recovery commands already provided in earlier steps.

Meeting Quality Rules

Persona Authenticity

Each persona speaks consistently with their role and bias
Personas use concrete examples, not abstract platitudes
A security engineer talks about attack vectors, not vague "security concerns"
A product owner talks about user impact and delivery timelines, not code patterns

Speed Rules

Maximum 3-4 personas per meeting
Single round of parallel sub-agents + facilitator synthesis (no Round 2 debate)
Optional devil's advocate sub-agent only when consensus is too high (adds ~10 seconds)
No user confirmation before implementation
Commit message and MR/PR are created automatically

Implementation Quality

Follow existing project conventions and patterns
Write clean, tested code
Run the project's test suite after implementation; attempt one fix cycle on failures
Keep changes focused on the recommendation — do not over-engineer
Scope guard: if changes exceed 10 files / 500 lines, scope down to the critical first step; if the scope is architectural, abort implementation and suggest /meeting
Protect the user's working tree: implementation runs in an isolated git worktree — the user's working directory is never modified

Examples

Example 1: Technical Decision

User: fast-meeting : est-ce qu'on doit utiliser GraphQL ou REST pour la nouvelle API

→ Auto-sélection : SOLID Alex (Backend), Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
→ Lance le fast meeting (1 tour + synthèse)
→ Implémente l'approche recommandée
→ Crée la branche feat/fm-graphql-vs-rest-api
→ Commit, push, crée la MR/PR avec description en français

Example 2: Bug Fix with Issue

User: fast-meeting sur l'issue #42 - les notifications ne s'affichent pas

→ Récupère les détails de l'issue #42
→ Auto-sélection : Pixel-Perfect Hugo (Frontend), SOLID Alex (Backend), Edge-Case Nico (QA)
→ Lance le fast meeting
→ Implémente le correctif
→ Crée la MR/PR, poste le lien sur l'issue #42

Example 3: Refactoring

User: fast-meeting : refactorer le module d'authentification pour supporter OAuth2

→ Auto-sélection : Paranoid Shug (Sécurité), SOLID Alex (Backend), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte), Pipeline Mo (DevOps)
→ Lance le fast meeting
→ Implémente le refactoring
→ Crée la MR/PR avec analyse en français

Example 4: No Issue Referenced — Auto-Creation

User: fast-meeting : migrer le cache Redis vers Valkey

→ Pas d'issue référencée
→ Auto-sélection : SOLID Alex (Backend), Pipeline Mo (DevOps), Whiteboard Damien (Architecte)
→ Lance le fast meeting (1 tour + synthèse)
→ Crée automatiquement l'issue #58 avec résumé PO (aucune confirmation requise)
→ Implémente la migration dans un worktree isolé
→ Commit, push, crée la MR/PR (Closes #58) avec description technique
→ Poste le résumé PO sur l'issue #58

Important Notes

Never create new labels on GitLab or GitHub. When adding labels to issues or merge requests, only use labels that already exist in the project. If unsure which labels exist, list them first (gh label list for GitHub, or check existing issue labels for GitLab) and pick from the available ones. If no suitable label exists, skip labeling rather than creating a new one.
This skill does NOT ask for user confirmation — it runs the full pipeline autonomously
If tests fail after one fix attempt, mark the MR/PR as Draft and document the failures
If the implementation scope is too large (architectural, multi-service), abort and suggest /meeting instead
The user's working tree is always protected: implementation runs in an isolated git worktree — no stash, no branch switch, no risk of state corruption. If worktree creation fails, the pipeline aborts cleanly rather than falling back to stash/checkout
Multiple fast-meetings can run in parallel on different worktrees — Step 0 only cleans up worktrees with no active processes, so parallel runs are safe
When creating a MR/PR, check for other active fast-meeting branches with git branch -r | grep '/fm-'. If other branches exist, add a warning in the MR/PR description: "Attention : d'autres branches fast-meeting sont actives. Vérifier les conflits potentiels avant merge."
The MR/PR description is always in French
Branch names follow Git flow conventions: <type>/fm-<topic> (e.g., feat/fm-<topic>, fix/fm-<topic>) — determined automatically from the meeting recommendation
If the remote type cannot be determined, default to gh pr create (GitHub)
Never force-push or modify existing branches — always create a new branch

Related skills

More from dedalus-erp-pas/foundation-skills

Installs

Repository

dedalus-erp-pas…n-skills

GitHub Stars

First Seen

Mar 8, 2026

Security Audits

Gen Agent Trust HubWarn

SocketWarn

SnykWarn