Separate explicit commitments from suggestions and keep missing ownership visible
5 min setupTested with:ChatGPTReviewed: 2026-08-28
1
Add your context
Your text stays in this browser. AILesson Prompts does not send it to a model or server.
2
Your prompt
Unfilled fields remain visible as placeholders, so you can still copy and edit the prompt
Extract action items from the meeting record.
Record:
[record]
Scope and cutoff:
[scope]
Commitment, date, status, and evidence rules:
[rules]
Distinguish explicit commitments, assigned actions, proposed actions, recurring responsibilities, and open needs. Do not assign an action to the person who mentioned it unless the record says they own or accept it. Preserve conditional language. Return a table with ID, action phrased as a verifiable deliverable, classification, explicit owner or Unassigned, due date or Not set, trigger, dependency, status, evidence locator, and confidence. Separate proposed items from the committed action list. Flag conflicting owners or dates, vague verbs, duplicate actions, and actions whose completion cannot be checked. Finish with questions needed to make the register executable.
Private by defaultPrompt assembly happens locally in your browser. Avoid placing confidential information into any AI service unless your organization allows it.
From input to outcome
A worked example
See how concrete context turns this recipe into a usable result
Actual input
Meeting record
12:04 Mia: We need the privacy review before beta. Could Omar take that? Omar: I can submit the review request by Friday, but Legal owns completion. 12:08 Jules: I will send Omar the data-flow diagram tomorrow. Mia: Maybe Priya should draft customer wording. Priya: I can help after Legal identifies required changes; no date yet. 12:12 Omar: If Legal flags high risk, we will pause invitations. Mia: Let's also consider a support briefing. No one responds.
Action scope and cutoff
Beta-readiness actions through 12:12. Include conditional commitments but keep suggestions separate.
Commitment and field rules
Commitment requires first-person acceptance or explicit assignment accepted in the record. Keep relative dates as written because meeting date is missing. Evidence uses timestamp and speaker.
Example output
Committed actions
A1 | Submit privacy review request | explicit commitment | Omar | Friday | none | needs data-flow diagram | Not started | 12:04 Omar | high.
A2 | Send data-flow diagram to Omar | explicit commitment | Jules | tomorrow | none | supports A1 | Not started | 12:08 Jules | high.
A3 | Assist with customer wording | conditional commitment | Priya | Not set | after Legal identifies required changes | Legal findings | Waiting | 12:08 Priya | high.
A4 | Pause beta invitations | conditional team action | Unassigned | Not set | if Legal flags high risk | Legal risk result | Waiting | 12:12 Omar | medium; “we” does not identify an owner.
Not an action owned by Omar: Legal completes the review; the record identifies Legal's responsibility but no person or due date. Proposed only: Priya drafting the wording; support briefing. Questions: what calendar dates do Friday/tomorrow mean, who tracks Legal completion, who owns the pause decision, what deliverable constitutes customer wording, and should anyone own the support briefing?
Why this works
1
Commitment classification prevents a facilitator's suggestion from silently becoming somebody else's task.
2
Verifiable deliverables make action completion observable instead of subjective.
Check the result
Does every named owner explicitly accept or receive the action in the record?
Are proposed and conditional actions labeled separately from commitments?
Can completion of each action be verified from its wording?
ChatGPT