alirezarezvani/decision-logger
c-level-advisor/skills/decision-logger/SKILL.md
Two-layer memory architecture for board meeting decisions. Manages raw transcripts (Layer 1) and approved decisions (Layer 2). Use when logging decisions after a board meeting, reviewing past decisions with /cs:decisions, or checking overdue action items with /cs:review. Invoked automatically by the board-meeting skill after Phase 5 founder approval.
$ install --global
skillsauthnpx skillsauth add alirezarezvani/claude-skills decision-loggerInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
Security Scan Results
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
3
Scanners Passed
9
Scanners in report
Clean
TrivyContainer and dependency vulnerability scanner
95%
Clean
SemgrepStatic code analysis for vulnerabilities
95%
Clean
mcp-scan (Snyk)Model Context Protocol security validation
95%
Skipped
Snyk (dep)Open source security scanning
50%
Skipped
Socket.devSupply chain security analysis
50%
Skipped
VirusTotalMulti-engine malware detection
50%
Skipped
CrowdStrikeAdvanced threat intelligence
50%
Skipped
OSV-ScannerOpen Source Vulnerability database check
50%
Skipped
OWASP Dep-Check
50%
Last scanned: May 3, 2026, 6:57 AM176.9s1 file scanned
SKILL.md
- name:
- decision-logger
- description:
- Two-layer memory architecture for board meeting decisions. Manages raw transcripts (Layer 1) and approved decisions (Layer 2). Use when logging decisions after a board meeting, reviewing past decisions with /cs:decisions, or checking overdue action items with /cs:review. Invoked automatically by the board-meeting skill after Phase 5 founder approval.
- license:
- MIT
- version:
- 1.0.0
- author:
- Alireza Rezvani
- category:
- c-level
- domain:
- decision-memory
- updated:
- 2026-03-05
- python-tools:
- scripts/decision_tracker.py
Decision Logger
Two-layer memory system. Layer 1 stores everything. Layer 2 stores only what the founder approved. Future meetings read Layer 2 only — this prevents hallucinated consensus from past debates bleeding into new deliberations.
Keywords
decision log, memory, approved decisions, action items, board minutes, /cs:decisions, /cs:review, conflict detection, DO_NOT_RESURFACE
Quick Start
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --demo # See sample output
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --summary # Overview + overdue
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --overdue # Past-deadline actions
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --conflicts # Contradiction detection
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --owner "CTO" # Filter by owner
python scripts/decision_tracker.py --search "pricing" # Search decisions
Commands
| Command | Effect |
|---------|--------|
| /cs:decisions | Last 10 approved decisions |
| /cs:decisions --all | Full history |
| /cs:decisions --owner CMO | Filter by owner |
| /cs:decisions --topic pricing | Search by keyword |
| /cs:review | Action items due within 7 days |
| /cs:review --overdue | Items past deadline |
Two-Layer Architecture
Layer 1 — Raw Transcripts
Location: memory/board-meetings/YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md
- Full Phase 2 agent contributions, Phase 3 critique, Phase 4 synthesis
- All debates, including rejected arguments
- NEVER auto-loaded. Only on explicit founder request.
- Archive after 90 days →
memory/board-meetings/archive/YYYY/
Layer 2 — Approved Decisions
Location: memory/board-meetings/decisions.md
- ONLY founder-approved decisions, action items, user corrections
- Loaded automatically in Phase 1 of every board meeting
- Append-only. Decisions are never deleted — only superseded.
- Managed by Chief of Staff after Phase 5. Never written by agents directly.
Decision Entry Format
## [YYYY-MM-DD] — [AGENDA ITEM TITLE]
**Decision:** [One clear statement of what was decided.]
**Owner:** [One person or role — accountable for execution.]
**Deadline:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Review:** [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Rationale:** [Why this over alternatives. 1-2 sentences.]
**User Override:** [If founder changed agent recommendation — what and why. Blank if not applicable.]
**Rejected:**
- [Proposal] — [reason] [DO_NOT_RESURFACE]
**Action Items:**
- [ ] [Action] — Owner: [name] — Due: [YYYY-MM-DD] — Review: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Supersedes:** [DATE of previous decision on same topic, if any]
**Superseded by:** [Filled in retroactively if overridden later]
**Raw transcript:** memory/board-meetings/[DATE]-raw.md
Conflict Detection
Before logging, Chief of Staff checks for:
- DO_NOT_RESURFACE violations — new decision matches a rejected proposal
- Topic contradictions — two active decisions on same topic with different conclusions
- Owner conflicts — same action assigned to different people in different decisions
When a conflict is found:
⚠️ DECISION CONFLICT
New: [text]
Conflicts with: [DATE] — [existing text]
Options: (1) Supersede old (2) Merge (3) Defer to founder
DO_NOT_RESURFACE enforcement:
🚫 BLOCKED: "[Proposal]" was rejected on [DATE]. Reason: [reason].
To reopen: founder must explicitly say "reopen [topic] from [DATE]".
Logging Workflow (Post Phase 5)
- Founder approves synthesis
- Write Layer 1 raw transcript →
YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md - Check conflicts against
decisions.md - Surface conflicts → wait for founder resolution
- Append approved entries to
decisions.md - Confirm: decisions logged, actions tracked, DO_NOT_RESURFACE flags added
Marking Actions Complete
- [x] [Action] — Owner: [name] — Completed: [DATE] — Result: [one sentence]
Never delete completed items. The history is the record.
File Structure
memory/board-meetings/
├── decisions.md # Layer 2: append-only, founder-approved
├── YYYY-MM-DD-raw.md # Layer 1: full transcript per meeting
└── archive/YYYY/ # Raw files after 90 days
References
templates/decision-entry.md— single entry template with field rulesscripts/decision_tracker.py— CLI parser, overdue tracker, conflict detector
Related Skills
alirezarezvani/code-reviewer
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Code review automation for TypeScript, JavaScript, Python, Go, Swift, Kotlin, C#, .NET, Java, C, C++, Rust, Ruby, PHP, and Dart/Flutter. Analyzes PRs for complexity and risk, checks code quality for SOLID violations and code smells, generates review reports. Use when reviewing pull requests, analyzing code quality, identifying issues, generating review checklists.
16,546SKILL.mdUpdated May 10, 2026
alirezarezvani/research-ops-skills
tools
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Use when planning, funding, scoping, or synthesizing enterprise research across workstreams — clinical study design, R&D program finance, market sizing/surveys, or product/user research. Triggers on "design this clinical study", "what sample size", "R&D budget", "burn rate", "capitalize or expense", "TAM SAM SOM", "market sizing", "survey design", "segment the market", "plan user interviews", "usability test", "synthesize research insights". Forks context to route to one of four Research-Operations sub-skills (clinical-research, research-finance, market-research, product-research) and returns a digest. Distinct from ra-qm-team (regulatory submission), finance (corporate close/valuation), research/grants (funding discovery), product-team (persona/journey/live experiments), and marketing-skill (campaign analytics).
16,359SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026
alirezarezvani/research-finance
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Use when managing the money for an internal R&D program or portfolio — building a multi-period program budget with the F&A (indirect) split, tracking burn rate and runway against value-inflection milestones, or routing R&D cost items to a capitalize-vs-expense determination. Every budget output surfaces its assumptions block; capitalize-vs-expense is decision-support only and routes to a named finance owner — it never books an entry or decides accounting treatment. Distinct from finance/financial-analysis (corporate DCF, close, valuation) and research/grants (funding discovery — this manages money already won).
16,359SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026
alirezarezvani/product-research
development
VerifiedTrustedCommunity
Use when planning and synthesizing product/user research as a method-and-repository discipline — selecting the right method for the goal (generative interviews vs usability test vs concept test vs validation), computing method-based saturation/sample size with an explicit confidence level, or synthesizing coded observations into insights while flagging single-source anecdotes. Never fabricates user insight; an insight requires recurrence across independent participants. Distinct from product-team/ux-researcher-designer (persona/journey artifacts), product-discovery (discovery-sprint planning), and experiment-designer (live A/B) — this is the research-ops method + insight-repository layer.
16,359SKILL.mdUpdated May 28, 2026