@crewpilot/agent 1.0.0 → 2.0.0

package/prompts/skills/autopilot-meeting/SKILL.md

@@ -1,407 +1,434 @@
-# Autopilot Meeting
-
-> **Pillar**: Orchestrate | **ID**: `autopilot-meeting`
-
-## Purpose
-
-Parse a meeting transcript (standup, planning, retro, customer call) to extract work items — then create **user stories with acceptance criteria and subtasks**, group them under **epics**, and push everything to the board. Turns a 30-minute meeting into a fully structured backlog with zero manual data entry.
-
-Specifically supports the **PM workflow**: customer meeting → epics → user stories → subtasks → sized & prioritized → sprint-ready.
-
-## Activation Triggers
-
-- meeting, transcript, standup, planning, retro, parse meeting, meeting notes, action items, from meeting, customer call, user stories from meeting, create stories, backlog from meeting
-
-## Tools Required
-
-- `catalyst_board_create` — create issues / user stories on board
-- `catalyst_board_create_epic` — create epics to group related stories
-- `catalyst_board_create_subtask` — create subtasks linked to a parent story
-- `catalyst_board_move` — update issue status for status updates
-- `catalyst_board_comment` — log blockers and decisions on existing issues
-- `catalyst_board_assign` — assign tasks to people mentioned in transcript
-- `catalyst_knowledge_store` — store decisions, customer context, and action items
-- `catalyst_worker_start` — optionally kick off autopilot for created tasks
-
-## Methodology
-
-### Process Flow
-
-```dot
-digraph autopilot_meeting {
-    rankdir=TB;
-    node [shape=box];
-
-    ingest [label="Phase 1\nTranscript Ingestion"];
-    extract [label="Phase 2\nExtraction & Classification"];
-    structure [label="Phase 3\nUser Story Structuring\n(stories, criteria, subtasks,\nsizing, epics)"];
-    review_gate [label="Phase 4\nHUMAN GATE:\nReview Backlog", shape=diamond, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
-    create [label="Phase 5\nBoard Creation Pipeline"];
-    summary [label="Phase 6\nSummary", shape=doublecircle];
-
-    ingest -> extract;
-    extract -> structure;
-    structure -> review_gate;
-    review_gate -> create [label="approve"];
-    review_gate -> structure [label="edit/split/merge"];
-    review_gate -> summary [label="cancel"];
-    create -> summary;
-}
-```
-
-### Phase 1 — Transcript Ingestion
-
-Accept transcript in any format:
-- Pasted text (most common)
-- File path to `.vtt`, `.txt`, or `.md` file (read via tools)
-- Structured notes with speaker labels
-
-Identify:
-- **Speaker labels** — look for "Name:", "Speaker 1:", timestamps with names
-- **Meeting type** — standup (short updates), planning (task creation), retro (action items), **customer call** (feature requests, requirements)
-- If no speaker labels, treat as unstructured notes and extract items without assignee attribution
-- **Customer context** — if this is a customer/stakeholder meeting, note: who the customer is, what their role is, business justification for requests
-
-### Phase 2 — Extraction & Classification
-
-For each speaker turn or paragraph, classify content into:
-
-| Type | Pattern Signals |
-|---|---|
-| **FEATURE_REQUEST** | "we need", "customers want", "can we add", "requirement is", "must have", "should support" |
-| **USER_STORY** | "as a user", "when I", "so that", "use case", "scenario", "workflow" |
-| **NEW_TASK** | "we need to", "can you", "let's build", "should implement", "create a", "add support for" |
-| **STATUS_UPDATE** | "I finished", "almost done", "completed", "working on", "made progress on" |
-| **BLOCKER** | "blocked on", "stuck", "waiting for", "can't proceed", "need access to", "depends on" |
-| **DECISION** | "we decided", "agreed to", "let's go with", "consensus is", "chose X over Y" |
-| **ACTION_ITEM** | "will do", "I'll take", "by Friday", "follow up on", name + commitment |
-| **NOISE** | "can you hear me", "you're muted", greetings, filler, tangents — SKIP these |
-| **BUG_REPORT** | "crashes", "broken", "doesn't work", "error", "500", "blank page", "regression", "users reporting", "intermittent", "something's wrong", "used to work", "data is wrong", "wrong result", "security issue", "vulnerability", "can't access", "slow", "performance degraded", "memory", "leak" |
-| **NEEDS_DESIGN** | "figure out the approach", "evaluate options", "which technology", "trade-offs", "compare solutions", "design doc needed", "need to think through", "spike on", "investigate how", "multiple ways to" |
-| **NEEDS_ARCHITECTURE** | "new system", "new module", "architecture plan", "system design", "how do components interact", "service boundary", "data flow", "new service", "infrastructure change", "cross-cutting concern" |
-
-### Phase 3 — User Story Structuring
-
-For each FEATURE_REQUEST, USER_STORY, or NEW_TASK, generate a **structured user story**.
-For each BUG_REPORT, generate a **structured bug report** instead (see 3a-bug below).
-
-#### 3a. User Story Format (for features/tasks)
-```
-Title: <concise action-oriented title, max 10 words>
-
-As a [persona/role],
-I want [capability/action],
-So that [business value/outcome].
-```
-
-#### 3a-bug. Bug Report Format (for BUG_REPORT items)
-
-Bugs are NOT user stories. They follow a different structure optimized for investigation:
-
-```
-Title: "Fix: <symptom in plain language>" (e.g., "Fix: Order history crashes for some users")
-
-## Symptoms
-- What users are seeing (exact error messages, behavior)
-- When it started / how often it happens
-- How many users are affected
-
-## Reproduction Steps (extracted from transcript)
-1. [Step extracted from discussion, or "Needs investigation" if not described]
-2. ...
-
-## Suspected Area
-- Module/component mentioned in discussion (if any)
-- Related recent changes (if mentioned)
-
-## Severity
-- P0: Security vulnerability, data loss, full outage
-- P1: Feature broken for subset of users, data integrity issue
-- P2: Degraded experience, workaround exists
-- P3: Minor annoyance, cosmetic, performance nit
-```
-
-**Critical rule for bugs**: The first stage when a worker picks up a bug is **Root Cause Analysis (Phase 2.5c)**, NOT implementation. The task description must frame the work as "Investigate and fix" — never "Implement" or "Build". This ensures the worker runs the RCA skill (hypothesis-driven debugging) before writing any code.
-
-**Bug severity auto-mapping** (extracted from transcript signals):
-| Signal in Transcript | Severity | Label |
-|---|---|---|
-| "security", "vulnerability", "unauthorized", "bypass", "data exposed" | P0 | `bug`, `security` |
-| "crashes", "500 error", "blank page", "data loss", "wrong totals" | P1 | `bug` |
-| "slow", "degraded", "intermittent", "workaround" | P2 | `bug` |
-| "annoying", "cosmetic", "minor", "eventually" | P3 | `bug` |
-
-#### 3b. Acceptance Criteria (generate 3-5 per story)
-```
-## Acceptance Criteria
-- [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [expected result]
-- [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [expected result]
-- [ ] Edge case: [scenario] is handled gracefully
-- [ ] Error state: [failure mode] shows appropriate message
-- [ ] Performance: [action] completes within [threshold] (if applicable)
-```
-
-#### 3c. Subtask Decomposition (generate 3-6 subtasks per story)
-Break each story into implementation subtasks:
-```
-Subtasks:
-  1. [Backend] <API/data layer work>
-  2. [Frontend] <UI component work> (if applicable)
-  3. [Validation] <input validation, error handling>
-  4. [Tests] <unit + integration tests>
-  5. [Docs] <API docs, user docs> (if applicable)
-  6. [Migration] <data migration, schema changes> (if applicable)
-```
-
-#### 3d. Sizing & Priority
-For each story, estimate:
-- **T-shirt size**: XS (< 2h) | S (half day) | M (1-2 days) | L (3-5 days) | XL (1+ week)
-- **Story points**: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 (Fibonacci, based on complexity + uncertainty)
-- **Priority**: P0 (critical/blocking) | P1 (must-have this sprint) | P2 (should-have) | P3 (nice-to-have)
-- **Priority rationale**: one sentence explaining why this priority
-
-Use these signals for priority:
-- P0: "urgent", "blocking", "production issue", "customer escalation"
-- P1: "important", "committed", "this sprint", "promised to customer"
-- P2: "should do", "next sprint candidate", "good improvement"
-- P3: "nice to have", "someday", "low impact"
-
-#### 3e. Epic Grouping
-Group related stories under an epic:
-- If 3+ stories share a theme (e.g., "authentication", "dashboard", "API v2") → create an epic
-- Epic title format: `[Epic] <theme name>`
-- Each epic gets a high-level description summarizing the business goal
-- Stories reference their parent epic via label `epic:<epic-title-slug>`
-
-#### 3f. Dependency Detection
-Identify dependencies between stories:
-- "before we can do X, we need Y" → Y blocks X
-- "this depends on the API being ready" → dependency noted
-- Add dependency info to the Technical Notes section of the story
-
-#### 3g. Customer Context (for customer/stakeholder meetings)
-If customer context was detected in Phase 1, attach to each relevant story:
-```
-## Customer Context
-- **Requested by**: [customer name/company]
-- **Business justification**: [why they need this]
-- **Commitment**: [was anything promised? timeline?]
-- **Impact**: [how many users/accounts affected]
-```
-
-### Phase 4 — HUMAN GATE: Review Structured Backlog
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-Do NOT create any issues, epics, or stories on the board until the user has reviewed and approved the structured backlog.
-Do NOT skip this gate even if the user says "just create everything" before seeing the structured output.
-Present the full backlog first, then wait for explicit approval.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-**STOP. Present the full structured backlog for approval:**
-
-```
-📋 Meeting → Backlog Results
-
-Meeting type: {standup|planning|retro|customer-call}
-Speakers identified: {list}
-Customer: {customer name, if applicable}
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-EPICS ({count}):
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-📦 Epic 1: "{epic title}"
-   {epic description}
-   Stories: {count} | Total points: {sum}
-
-   📝 Story 1.1: "{title}" [{T-shirt}] [{points}pts] [P{priority}]
-      As a {persona}, I want {X}, so that {Y}
-      Acceptance Criteria: {count} items
-      Subtasks: {count} items
-      Assignee: @{assignee} (or unassigned)
-      Dependencies: {list or "none"}
-
-   📝 Story 1.2: "{title}" [{T-shirt}] [{points}pts] [P{priority}]
-      ...
-
-📦 Epic 2: "{epic title}"
-   ...
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-STANDALONE ITEMS:
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-BUG REPORTS ({count}):
-  1. 🐛 [P{severity}] "{title}" — {symptom summary}
-     Labels: bug{, security if applicable}
-     Suspected area: {module}
-     Worker flow: RCA (Phase 2.5c) → Fix → Test → PR
-
-STATUS UPDATES ({count}):
-  1. 🔄 @{person}: {task} — {update}
-
-BLOCKERS ({count}):
-  1. 🚫 @{person}: {blocker description}
-
-DECISIONS ({count}):
-  1. 💡 {decision} — agreed by: {participants}
-
-ACTION ITEMS ({count}):
-  1. ⏰ @{person}: {action} — due: {date if mentioned}
-
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-SUMMARY:
-  Epics: {N} | Stories: {N} | Bugs: {N} | Subtasks: {N}
-  Total points: {N} | Avg priority: P{N}
-━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
-
-Options:
-  [A] Approve all → create everything on board
-  [E] Edit → modify specific items
-  [S] Split → break a story into smaller stories
-  [M] Merge → combine similar stories
-  [R] Re-prioritize → change priorities
-  [C] Cancel → discard
-```
-
-User can:
-- **Approve all** → proceed to create everything
-- **Edit** → modify specific items (change title, acceptance criteria, reassign, resize, re-prioritize, remove)
-- **Split** → break a large story into smaller ones
-- **Merge** → combine duplicate or overlapping stories
-- **Re-prioritize** → adjust priority assignments
-- **Cancel** → stop
-
-### Phase 5 — Board Creation Pipeline
-
-Execute in this order:
-
-**Step 1: Create Epics**
-For each epic:
-1. Call `catalyst_board_create_epic` with title, description, labels
-2. Note the created epic issue ID
-
-**Step 2: Create User Stories**
-For each story:
-1. Build the full description with Summary, User Story statement, Acceptance Criteria, Technical Notes, Customer Context (if applicable), Dependencies
-2. Call `catalyst_board_create` with:
-   - title
-   - structured description (see format below)
-   - assignee
-   - labels: `["user-story", "epic:<epic-slug>", "size:<t-shirt>", "priority:P{N}"]`
-     - **If the story was tagged NEEDS_DESIGN in Phase 2**, add `needs-design` to labels
-     - **If the story was tagged NEEDS_ARCHITECTURE in Phase 2**, add `needs-architecture` to labels
-     - **If the story was tagged BUG_REPORT in Phase 2**, add `bug` to labels (and `security` if it's a security bug). Use `"bug"` instead of `"user-story"` as the first label. **This is critical** — without the `bug` label, the worker will skip RCA (Phase 2.5c) and jump straight to implementation, meaning the root cause is never properly diagnosed.
-     - A story can have multiple signal labels (e.g., `bug` + `needs-design` if fixing requires design evaluation)
-   - priority
-   - points (Fibonacci story points)
-3. Note the created story issue ID
-
-**Story description format for board_create (features):**
-```markdown
-## Summary
-{what and why — 2-3 sentences}
-
-## User Story
-As a {persona}, I want {capability}, so that {business value}.
-
-## Acceptance Criteria
-- [ ] Given {precondition}, when {action}, then {expected result}
-- [ ] ...
-
-## Technical Notes
-- Stack: {relevant technologies}
-- Dependencies: {blocking stories or external deps}
-- Constraints: {performance, security, compatibility requirements}
-```
-
-**Bug description format for board_create (BUG_REPORT items):**
-```markdown
-## Summary
-Investigate and fix: {symptom description — 1-2 sentences}
-
-## Symptoms
-- {what users are experiencing}
-- {frequency / affected user count if mentioned}
-
-## Reproduction Steps
-1. {step from transcript or "Needs investigation"}
-2. ...
-
-## Suspected Area
-- {module/file/component mentioned in discussion}
-- {related recent changes if mentioned}
-
-## Technical Notes
-- Severity: {P0-P3 with rationale}
-- Stack: {relevant technologies}
-- Dependencies: {blocking issues or external deps}
-
-## Customer Context
-- Requested by: {customer} (if applicable)
-- Business justification: {why}
-```
-
-**Step 3: Create Subtasks**
-For each story's subtasks:
-1. Call `catalyst_board_create_subtask` with:
-   - parent_id: the story's issue ID
-   - title: `[Backend] Implement user authentication endpoint`
-   - description: implementation details
-   - labels: `["subtask", "epic:<epic-slug>"]`
-2. Note created subtask IDs
-
-**Step 4: Status Updates, Blockers, Decisions**
-Same as before:
-- STATUS_UPDATE → `catalyst_board_comment` or `catalyst_board_move`
-- BLOCKER → `catalyst_board_comment` or create blocker issue
-- DECISION → `catalyst_knowledge_store` with type: "decision"
-- ACTION_ITEM → board issue or knowledge store
-
-**Step 5: Autopilot (optional)**
-If user requested autopilot → call `catalyst_worker_start` for each created story
-
-### Phase 6 — Summary
-
-Present final summary:
-
-```
-✅ Meeting → Backlog Complete
-
-Epics created:    {N} (#{ids})
-Stories created:  {N} (#{ids})
-Subtasks created: {N} (#{ids})
-Total points:     {N}
-Updated:          {N} existing items
-Blockers:         {N} logged
-Decisions:        {N} stored in knowledge base
-Autopilot:        {N} workflows started (if any)
-
-Board: Use catalyst_board_view to see the full board
-
-Dependency chain:
-  Story #{X} → blocks → Story #{Y}
-  Story #{Z} → blocks → Story #{W}
-```
-
-## Output Format
-
-Use the structured formats shown in each phase. Group by epic → story → subtask. Always show counts and point totals.
-
-## Anti-Patterns
-
-- Do NOT create issues without showing them to the user first (Phase 4 gate is mandatory)
-- Do NOT guess assignees if the transcript doesn't mention names — leave unassigned
-- Do NOT extract noise/filler as tasks
-- Do NOT create duplicate issues — if the transcript mentions an existing task, UPDATE it
-- Do NOT auto-start autopilot without explicit user consent
-- Do NOT include meeting transcript verbatim in issue descriptions — summarize
-- Do NOT create stories without acceptance criteria — every story needs at least 3 criteria
-- Do NOT skip subtask decomposition — every story gets 3-6 subtasks
-- Do NOT assign arbitrary story points — use complexity signals from the transcript
-- Do NOT create an epic for a single story — epics need 3+ related stories (otherwise standalone)
-
-## Chains To
-
-- `autopilot-worker` — for stories that should be implemented automatically
-- `knowledge-base` — decisions and customer context are always stored
+# Autopilot Meeting
+
+> **Pillar**: Orchestrate | **ID**: `autopilot-meeting`
+
+## Purpose
+
+Parse a meeting transcript (standup, planning, retro, customer call) to extract work items — then create **user stories with acceptance criteria and subtasks**, group them under **epics**, and push everything to the board. Turns a 30-minute meeting into a fully structured backlog with zero manual data entry.
+
+Specifically supports the **PM workflow**: customer meeting → epics → user stories → subtasks → sized & prioritized → sprint-ready.
+
+## Activation Triggers
+
+- meeting, transcript, standup, planning, retro, parse meeting, meeting notes, action items, from meeting, customer call, user stories from meeting, create stories, backlog from meeting
+
+## Tools Required
+
+- `catalyst_board_create` — create issues / user stories on board
+- `catalyst_board_create_epic` — create epics to group related stories
+- `catalyst_board_create_subtask` — create subtasks linked to a parent story
+- `catalyst_board_move` — update issue status for status updates
+- `catalyst_board_comment` — log blockers and decisions on existing issues
+- `catalyst_board_assign` — assign tasks to people mentioned in transcript
+- `catalyst_knowledge_store` — store decisions, customer context, and action items
+- `catalyst_worker_start` — optionally kick off autopilot for created tasks
+- `mcp_workiq_accept_eula` — (optional) accept Work IQ EULA before first query
+- `mcp_workiq_ask_work_iq` — (optional, requires Work IQ extension) fetch meeting transcript and details from M365
+- `catalyst_artifact_write` — persist extracted meeting data as artifacts
+
+## Methodology
+
+### Process Flow
+
+```dot
+digraph autopilot_meeting {
+    rankdir=TB;
+    node [shape=box];
+
+    ingest [label="Phase 1\nTranscript Ingestion"];
+    extract [label="Phase 2\nExtraction & Classification"];
+    structure [label="Phase 3\nUser Story Structuring\n(stories, criteria, subtasks,\nsizing, epics)"];
+    review_gate [label="Phase 4\nHUMAN GATE:\nReview Backlog", shape=diamond, style=filled, fillcolor="#ffcccc"];
+    create [label="Phase 5\nBoard Creation Pipeline"];
+    summary [label="Phase 6\nSummary", shape=doublecircle];
+
+    ingest -> extract;
+    extract -> structure;
+    structure -> review_gate;
+    review_gate -> create [label="approve"];
+    review_gate -> structure [label="edit/split/merge"];
+    review_gate -> summary [label="cancel"];
+    create -> summary;
+}
+```
+
+### Phase 1 — Transcript Ingestion
+
+**Work IQ integration (zero-copy flow):** If the user specifies a meeting by name/date/subject (e.g. "parse yesterday's sprint planning" or "check my meeting discussion"):
+
+1. **Accept EULA first**: Call `mcp_workiq_accept_eula` with `eulaUrl: "https://github.com/microsoft/work-iq-mcp"`. This is idempotent — safe to call every time.
+2. **Query the meeting**: Call `mcp_workiq_ask_work_iq` with a focused question. Use targeted queries for better results:
+   - "What was discussed in the {meeting name} meeting on {date}?"
+   - "Summarize the transcript from my meeting with {person} on {date}"
+   - "What action items came out of the {project} meeting?"
+   - "What decisions were made in the {topic} meeting?"
+3. If Work IQ is available, the transcript, attendees, and action items are fetched automatically — no manual paste needed.
+4. **Cross-meeting context**: Query for prior decisions related to the same topic:
+   - "What decisions were made about {topic} in previous meetings?"
+   - "What was discussed about {feature/project} in earlier meetings this month?"
+   - This surfaces continuity across meetings — ensures new items don't contradict prior agreements.
+5. **Speaker identity enrichment**: Query the org chart for real names and roles:
+   - "Who is {speaker name}? What is their role and team?"
+   - Map speaker labels to real identities for accurate assignee attribution and RACI context.
+6. **Linked document references**: Query for documents referenced or shared during the meeting:
+   - "What documents, specs, or design docs were shared in the {meeting name} meeting?"
+   - "Find SharePoint/OneDrive documents related to {topic} shared recently"
+   - Attach linked docs to the relevant stories as context references.
+7. If `mcp_workiq_ask_work_iq` is unavailable or errors, fall back to the manual flow below.
+
+> **Data sensitivity**: Meeting transcripts may contain confidential information or PII. Do not include raw transcript excerpts with names or customer-identifying details in board items — summarize and anonymize.
+
+Accept transcript in any format:
+- Pasted text (most common)
+- File path to `.vtt`, `.txt`, or `.md` file (read via tools)
+- Structured notes with speaker labels
+
+Identify:
+- **Speaker labels** — look for "Name:", "Speaker 1:", timestamps with names
+- **Meeting type** — standup (short updates), planning (task creation), retro (action items), **customer call** (feature requests, requirements)
+- If no speaker labels, treat as unstructured notes and extract items without assignee attribution
+- **Customer context** — if this is a customer/stakeholder meeting, note: who the customer is, what their role is, business justification for requests
+
+### Phase 2 — Extraction & Classification
+
+For each speaker turn or paragraph, classify content into:
+
+| Type | Pattern Signals |
+|---|---|
+| **FEATURE_REQUEST** | "we need", "customers want", "can we add", "requirement is", "must have", "should support" |
+| **USER_STORY** | "as a user", "when I", "so that", "use case", "scenario", "workflow" |
+| **NEW_TASK** | "we need to", "can you", "let's build", "should implement", "create a", "add support for" |
+| **STATUS_UPDATE** | "I finished", "almost done", "completed", "working on", "made progress on" |
+| **BLOCKER** | "blocked on", "stuck", "waiting for", "can't proceed", "need access to", "depends on" |
+| **DECISION** | "we decided", "agreed to", "let's go with", "consensus is", "chose X over Y" |
+| **ACTION_ITEM** | "will do", "I'll take", "by Friday", "follow up on", name + commitment |
+| **NOISE** | "can you hear me", "you're muted", greetings, filler, tangents — SKIP these |
+| **BUG_REPORT** | "crashes", "broken", "doesn't work", "error", "500", "blank page", "regression", "users reporting", "intermittent", "something's wrong", "used to work", "data is wrong", "wrong result", "security issue", "vulnerability", "can't access", "slow", "performance degraded", "memory", "leak" |
+| **NEEDS_DESIGN** | "figure out the approach", "evaluate options", "which technology", "trade-offs", "compare solutions", "design doc needed", "need to think through", "spike on", "investigate how", "multiple ways to" |
+| **NEEDS_ARCHITECTURE** | "new system", "new module", "architecture plan", "system design", "how do components interact", "service boundary", "data flow", "new service", "infrastructure change", "cross-cutting concern" |
+
+### Phase 3 — User Story Structuring
+
+For each FEATURE_REQUEST, USER_STORY, or NEW_TASK, generate a **structured user story**.
+For each BUG_REPORT, generate a **structured bug report** instead (see 3a-bug below).
+
+#### 3a. User Story Format (for features/tasks)
+```
+Title: <concise action-oriented title, max 10 words>
+
+As a [persona/role],
+I want [capability/action],
+So that [business value/outcome].
+```
+
+#### 3a-bug. Bug Report Format (for BUG_REPORT items)
+
+Bugs are NOT user stories. They follow a different structure optimized for investigation:
+
+```
+Title: "Fix: <symptom in plain language>" (e.g., "Fix: Order history crashes for some users")
+
+## Symptoms
+- What users are seeing (exact error messages, behavior)
+- When it started / how often it happens
+- How many users are affected
+
+## Reproduction Steps (extracted from transcript)
+1. [Step extracted from discussion, or "Needs investigation" if not described]
+2. ...
+
+## Suspected Area
+- Module/component mentioned in discussion (if any)
+- Related recent changes (if mentioned)
+
+## Severity
+- P0: Security vulnerability, data loss, full outage
+- P1: Feature broken for subset of users, data integrity issue
+- P2: Degraded experience, workaround exists
+- P3: Minor annoyance, cosmetic, performance nit
+```
+
+**Critical rule for bugs**: The first stage when a worker picks up a bug is **Root Cause Analysis (Phase 2.5c)**, NOT implementation. The task description must frame the work as "Investigate and fix" — never "Implement" or "Build". This ensures the worker runs the RCA skill (hypothesis-driven debugging) before writing any code.
+
+**Bug severity auto-mapping** (extracted from transcript signals):
+| Signal in Transcript | Severity | Label |
+|---|---|---|
+| "security", "vulnerability", "unauthorized", "bypass", "data exposed" | P0 | `bug`, `security` |
+| "crashes", "500 error", "blank page", "data loss", "wrong totals" | P1 | `bug` |
+| "slow", "degraded", "intermittent", "workaround" | P2 | `bug` |
+| "annoying", "cosmetic", "minor", "eventually" | P3 | `bug` |
+
+#### 3b. Acceptance Criteria (generate 3-5 per story)
+```
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [expected result]
+- [ ] Given [precondition], when [action], then [expected result]
+- [ ] Edge case: [scenario] is handled gracefully
+- [ ] Error state: [failure mode] shows appropriate message
+- [ ] Performance: [action] completes within [threshold] (if applicable)
+```
+
+#### 3c. Subtask Decomposition (generate 3-6 subtasks per story)
+Break each story into implementation subtasks:
+```
+Subtasks:
+  1. [Backend] <API/data layer work>
+  2. [Frontend] <UI component work> (if applicable)
+  3. [Validation] <input validation, error handling>
+  4. [Tests] <unit + integration tests>
+  5. [Docs] <API docs, user docs> (if applicable)
+  6. [Migration] <data migration, schema changes> (if applicable)
+```
+
+#### 3d. Sizing & Priority
+For each story, estimate:
+- **T-shirt size**: XS (< 2h) | S (half day) | M (1-2 days) | L (3-5 days) | XL (1+ week)
+- **Story points**: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 8 | 13 (Fibonacci, based on complexity + uncertainty)
+- **Priority**: P0 (critical/blocking) | P1 (must-have this sprint) | P2 (should-have) | P3 (nice-to-have)
+- **Priority rationale**: one sentence explaining why this priority
+
+Use these signals for priority:
+- P0: "urgent", "blocking", "production issue", "customer escalation"
+- P1: "important", "committed", "this sprint", "promised to customer"
+- P2: "should do", "next sprint candidate", "good improvement"
+- P3: "nice to have", "someday", "low impact"
+
+#### 3e. Epic Grouping
+Group related stories under an epic:
+- If 3+ stories share a theme (e.g., "authentication", "dashboard", "API v2") → create an epic
+- Epic title format: `[Epic] <theme name>`
+- Each epic gets a high-level description summarizing the business goal
+- Stories reference their parent epic via label `epic:<epic-title-slug>`
+
+#### 3f. Dependency Detection
+Identify dependencies between stories:
+- "before we can do X, we need Y" → Y blocks X
+- "this depends on the API being ready" → dependency noted
+- Add dependency info to the Technical Notes section of the story
+
+#### 3g. Customer Context (for customer/stakeholder meetings)
+If customer context was detected in Phase 1, attach to each relevant story:
+```
+## Customer Context
+- **Requested by**: [customer name/company]
+- **Business justification**: [why they need this]
+- **Commitment**: [was anything promised? timeline?]
+- **Impact**: [how many users/accounts affected]
+```
+
+### Phase 4 — HUMAN GATE: Review Structured Backlog
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+Do NOT create any issues, epics, or stories on the board until the user has reviewed and approved the structured backlog.
+Do NOT skip this gate even if the user says "just create everything" before seeing the structured output.
+Present the full backlog first, then wait for explicit approval.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+**STOP. Present the full structured backlog for approval:**
+
+```
+📋 Meeting → Backlog Results
+
+Meeting type: {standup|planning|retro|customer-call}
+Speakers identified: {list}
+Customer: {customer name, if applicable}
+
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+EPICS ({count}):
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+📦 Epic 1: "{epic title}"
+   {epic description}
+   Stories: {count} | Total points: {sum}
+
+   📝 Story 1.1: "{title}" [{T-shirt}] [{points}pts] [P{priority}]
+      As a {persona}, I want {X}, so that {Y}
+      Acceptance Criteria: {count} items
+      Subtasks: {count} items
+      Assignee: @{assignee} (or unassigned)
+      Dependencies: {list or "none"}
+
+   📝 Story 1.2: "{title}" [{T-shirt}] [{points}pts] [P{priority}]
+      ...
+
+📦 Epic 2: "{epic title}"
+   ...
+
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+STANDALONE ITEMS:
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+BUG REPORTS ({count}):
+  1. 🐛 [P{severity}] "{title}" — {symptom summary}
+     Labels: bug{, security if applicable}
+     Suspected area: {module}
+     Worker flow: RCA (Phase 2.5c) → Fix → Test → PR
+
+STATUS UPDATES ({count}):
+  1. 🔄 @{person}: {task} — {update}
+
+BLOCKERS ({count}):
+  1. 🚫 @{person}: {blocker description}
+
+DECISIONS ({count}):
+  1. 💡 {decision} — agreed by: {participants}
+
+ACTION ITEMS ({count}):
+  1. ⏰ @{person}: {action} — due: {date if mentioned}
+
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+SUMMARY:
+  Epics: {N} | Stories: {N} | Bugs: {N} | Subtasks: {N}
+  Total points: {N} | Avg priority: P{N}
+━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
+
+Options:
+  [A] Approve all → create everything on board
+  [E] Edit → modify specific items
+  [S] Split → break a story into smaller stories
+  [M] Merge → combine similar stories
+  [R] Re-prioritize → change priorities
+  [C] Cancel → discard
+```
+
+User can:
+- **Approve all** → proceed to create everything
+- **Edit** → modify specific items (change title, acceptance criteria, reassign, resize, re-prioritize, remove)
+- **Split** → break a large story into smaller ones
+- **Merge** → combine duplicate or overlapping stories
+- **Re-prioritize** → adjust priority assignments
+- **Cancel** → stop
+
+### Phase 5 — Board Creation Pipeline
+
+Execute in this order:
+
+**Step 1: Create Epics**
+For each epic:
+1. Call `catalyst_board_create_epic` with title, description, labels
+2. Note the created epic issue ID
+
+**Step 2: Create User Stories**
+For each story:
+1. Build the full description with Summary, User Story statement, Acceptance Criteria, Technical Notes, Customer Context (if applicable), Dependencies
+2. Call `catalyst_board_create` with:
+   - title
+   - structured description (see format below)
+   - assignee
+   - labels: `["user-story", "epic:<epic-slug>", "size:<t-shirt>", "priority:P{N}"]`
+     - **If the story was tagged NEEDS_DESIGN in Phase 2**, add `needs-design` to labels
+     - **If the story was tagged NEEDS_ARCHITECTURE in Phase 2**, add `needs-architecture` to labels
+     - **If the story was tagged BUG_REPORT in Phase 2**, add `bug` to labels (and `security` if it's a security bug). Use `"bug"` instead of `"user-story"` as the first label. **This is critical** — without the `bug` label, the worker will skip RCA (Phase 2.5c) and jump straight to implementation, meaning the root cause is never properly diagnosed.
+     - A story can have multiple signal labels (e.g., `bug` + `needs-design` if fixing requires design evaluation)
+   - priority
+   - points (Fibonacci story points)
+3. Note the created story issue ID
+
+**Story description format for board_create (features):**
+```markdown
+## Summary
+{what and why — 2-3 sentences}
+
+## User Story
+As a {persona}, I want {capability}, so that {business value}.
+
+## Acceptance Criteria
+- [ ] Given {precondition}, when {action}, then {expected result}
+- [ ] ...
+
+## Technical Notes
+- Stack: {relevant technologies}
+- Dependencies: {blocking stories or external deps}
+- Constraints: {performance, security, compatibility requirements}
+```
+
+**Bug description format for board_create (BUG_REPORT items):**
+```markdown
+## Summary
+Investigate and fix: {symptom description — 1-2 sentences}
+
+## Symptoms
+- {what users are experiencing}
+- {frequency / affected user count if mentioned}
+
+## Reproduction Steps
+1. {step from transcript or "Needs investigation"}
+2. ...
+
+## Suspected Area
+- {module/file/component mentioned in discussion}
+- {related recent changes if mentioned}
+
+## Technical Notes
+- Severity: {P0-P3 with rationale}
+- Stack: {relevant technologies}
+- Dependencies: {blocking issues or external deps}
+
+## Customer Context
+- Requested by: {customer} (if applicable)
+- Business justification: {why}
+```
+
+**Step 3: Create Subtasks**
+For each story's subtasks:
+1. Call `catalyst_board_create_subtask` with:
+   - parent_id: the story's issue ID
+   - title: `[Backend] Implement user authentication endpoint`
+   - description: implementation details
+   - labels: `["subtask", "epic:<epic-slug>"]`
+2. Note created subtask IDs
+
+**Step 4: Status Updates, Blockers, Decisions**
+Same as before:
+- STATUS_UPDATE → `catalyst_board_comment` or `catalyst_board_move`
+- BLOCKER → `catalyst_board_comment` or create blocker issue
+- DECISION → `catalyst_knowledge_store` with type: "decision"
+- ACTION_ITEM → board issue or knowledge store
+
+**Step 5: Autopilot (optional)**
+If user requested autopilot → call `catalyst_worker_start` for each created story
+
+### Phase 6 — Summary
+
+Present final summary:
+
+```
+✅ Meeting → Backlog Complete
+
+Epics created:    {N} (#{ids})
+Stories created:  {N} (#{ids})
+Subtasks created: {N} (#{ids})
+Total points:     {N}
+Updated:          {N} existing items
+Blockers:         {N} logged
+Decisions:        {N} stored in knowledge base
+Autopilot:        {N} workflows started (if any)
+
+Board: Use catalyst_board_view to see the full board
+
+Dependency chain:
+  Story #{X} → blocks → Story #{Y}
+  Story #{Z} → blocks → Story #{W}
+```
+
+## Output Format
+
+Use the structured formats shown in each phase. Group by epic → story → subtask. Always show counts and point totals.
+
+## Anti-Patterns
+
+- Do NOT create issues without showing them to the user first (Phase 4 gate is mandatory)
+- Do NOT guess assignees if the transcript doesn't mention names — leave unassigned
+- Do NOT extract noise/filler as tasks
+- Do NOT create duplicate issues — if the transcript mentions an existing task, UPDATE it
+- Do NOT auto-start autopilot without explicit user consent
+- Do NOT include meeting transcript verbatim in issue descriptions — summarize
+- Do NOT create stories without acceptance criteria — every story needs at least 3 criteria
+- Do NOT skip subtask decomposition — every story gets 3-6 subtasks
+- Do NOT assign arbitrary story points — use complexity signals from the transcript
+- Do NOT create an epic for a single story — epics need 3+ related stories (otherwise standalone)
+
+## Chains To
+
+- `autopilot-worker` — for stories that should be implemented automatically
+- `knowledge-base` — decisions and customer context are always stored