Claude Prompts for Zoom Meetings (Prep, Transcripts, Follow-Up)

<context> Raw transcript downloaded from the Zoom recording: [PASTE THE VTT OR TXT CONTENT] Real names for the speaker labels: [Speaker 1 is X, or the display names shown] Terms the transcription got wrong: [product names, acronyms, people's names] </context> <task> Clean this into a readable transcript. Strip the timestamp and cue number lines, merge consecutive lines from the same speaker into paragraphs, fix the misheard terms I listed, and mark anything unintelligible rather than guessing at it. </task> <format> Clean transcript with speaker name followed by their paragraph. Keep a timestamp only at each topic change. End with a list of terms you corrected so I can check them. </format>

<context> Meeting transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Meeting purpose: [what it was for] Who has decision authority: [name and role] </context> <task> Extract every decision the call actually made. For each one, capture the reasoning given, the alternatives that were rejected and why, and who made the call. Separate real decisions from things people agreed sounded good but never confirmed. </task> <format> One block per decision: Decision, Made by, Reasoning, Rejected alternatives, Confidence that this was truly decided. Then a list headed Discussed But Not Decided. </format>

<context> Transcript with speaker labels: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Attendees and roles: [names] Date of the call: [date] </context> <task> Go speaker by speaker and pull out everything each person said they would do, including soft commitments phrased as I can take a look at that. Rate each one as firm, vague, or someone else volunteering them, and quote the line it came from. </task> <format> Section per person: Commitment, Firmness, Date if stated, Quote. End with a Nobody Owns This list for work everyone agreed was needed with no name attached. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Meeting: [what it was, how long it ran] Audience for the summary: [colleagues who declined, a wider channel, leadership] </context> <task> Compress this into ten lines maximum. Include only what changes what someone does next: decisions, new information, and anything now waiting on a person outside the call. Cut the discussion, the tangents, and the parts that ended where they started. </task> <format> Ten single-line bullets, each starting with the subject. No preamble, no closing line, no restating the meeting title. </format>

<context> Full transcript of a long call: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] The only topic I care about: [subject, project, or account] Why I care: [I own it, I am affected by it, I have to report on it] </context> <task> Find every moment this topic came up, including passing mentions and references made without naming it directly. Summarize what was said about it, who said it, and whether anything about it was decided. Ignore the rest of the call entirely. </task> <format> Chronological list of mentions with speaker and approximate timestamp, then a short synthesis of what this means for my topic, then anything it now requires from me. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Meeting purpose: [what] Who was supposed to have the answers: [names and their areas] </context> <task> Find every question asked in this call and check whether it actually got an answer. Flag the ones that were deflected, answered with something adjacent, or lost when the conversation moved on. Note who asked and who should have answered. </task> <format> Table: Question, Asked by, Answered fully or partially or not at all, Who owes the answer. Then rank the unanswered ones by how much they matter to the decision. </format>

<context> Zoom transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] In-meeting chat export: [PASTE THE CHAT TXT] My own notes typed during the call: [PASTE NOTES] </context> <task> Build one record from all three sources. Fold the chat messages in at the point of the conversation they relate to, use my notes to resolve anything the transcript garbled, and flag any place where my notes and the transcript disagree instead of silently picking one. </task> <format> Single merged record organized by topic, with a source tag on anything that came only from chat or only from my notes, plus a Conflicts section listing disagreements between sources. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Date of the call: [date] Attendees and their current workload: [names, rough capacity] Hard deadlines that already exist: [dates] </context> <task> Extract every action item. Where a date was stated, use it. Where none was given, propose one and mark it as proposed rather than agreed. Where no owner was named, assign the most plausible person and flag it clearly as an assumption for me to confirm. </task> <format> Table: Action, Owner, Due, Stated or proposed, Blocked by. Sort by due date. Then a short list of the items you had to guess an owner for. </format>

<context> Action list from the call: [PASTE THE ACTIONS WITH OWNERS AND DATES] Relationship to each owner: [peer, report, another team, client] How long since the call: [days] Where I will send these: [Slack DM, email, the meeting thread] </context> <task> Write one short message per owner covering only their items. Include the context they need to start without rereading the transcript, and end each with a question they can answer in one line. </task> <format> One block per person, each a complete message under 60 words, headed with the person's name and the channel I should send it in. </format>

<context> Actions from the call: [PASTE THE ACTION LIST OR THE RELEVANT TRANSCRIPT SECTION] Tracker and its fields: [Jira, Linear, Asana, and the fields you require] Project or board: [name] Team conventions: [how you write titles, what a good description contains] </context> <task> Turn each action into a ticket a colleague could pick up without having attended. Add the context from the discussion, state the acceptance criteria, and note the open questions that need answering before work starts. </task> <format> One ticket per action: Title, Description, Acceptance criteria, Open questions, Owner, Estimate if inferable. Then the same set as comma separated values matching my tracker fields. </format>

<context> Transcript of the call that just ended: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Next meeting: [date, length, same attendees or not] Standing items we always cover: [list] </context> <task> Draft the next agenda from what this call left unfinished. Prioritize items that are blocking someone, note which need a specific person present, and drop anything that was resolved in the discussion even if it was on the previous agenda. </task> <format> Agenda with time boxes: Item, Why it is here, Who must attend for it, Minutes. Then a Carried Over Twice list flagging anything that has now been deferred more than once. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Team and what each person owns: [names, scope] Who runs this project: [name] </context> <task> Find everything the group agreed was necessary but never assigned. Include work hidden inside phrases like we should probably and someone needs to. For each item, suggest the most logical owner based on what people own, and say what makes it ambiguous. </task> <format> Table: Unowned work, Quote it came from, Suggested owner, Why ownership is unclear. Then a short message I can send to propose the assignments. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Project and deadline: [name, date] Known risks already tracked: [list] </context> <task> Pull out every risk, dependency and blocker mentioned, including the ones raised in passing and dropped. Mark which are already on our register and which are new. For each new one, estimate likelihood and impact from what was said, and note who would need to act. </task> <format> Register table: Risk, New or known, Likelihood, Impact, Owner, Mitigation discussed or none. Then the two or three that deserve escalation this week. </format>

<context> Previous meeting actions: [PASTE THE PREVIOUS ACTION LIST] Transcript of this week's call: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Time between the two: [days or weeks] </context> <task> Compare the two. Mark each previous action as done, in progress, silently dropped, or reassigned, using what was said in the new transcript as evidence. Highlight anything that was promised again with a new date. </task> <format> Table: Previous action, Owner, Status, Evidence from this call. Then a short section headed Promised Twice listing items now on their second or third deadline. </format>

<context> Transcript or my notes: [PASTE] Recipients and what each cares about: [names, roles, interests] Their involvement: [attended, invited but absent, not invited but affected] What I need them to do after reading: [nothing, approve something, adjust a plan] </context> <task> Write the recap email. Lead with what changed rather than what was discussed, keep it scannable for someone reading on a phone, and put anything requiring their action in a clearly separated block near the top. </task> <format> Email with a subject line under 60 characters, a two-sentence opening, Decisions, Action Required From You with names, Everything Else in three bullets. Under 250 words. </format>

<context> Call transcript or notes: [PASTE] Client and attendees: [company, names] What was agreed: [scope, price, dates, conditions] What is still open: [items] Commercial sensitivity: [what I should not put in writing yet] </context> <task> Write the confirmation email. Restate what was agreed precisely enough that it stands as a record, separate agreed items from things still under discussion so neither side assumes too much, and invite corrections with a deadline. </task> <format> Email with: opening thanks line, Agreed On Today as a numbered list, Still Open as a list with owners, Next Steps with dates, a closing line asking them to reply with corrections by a stated date. </format>

<context> Transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] When they left: [approximate time or topic] Their role and what they care about: [title, priorities] What happened after they left: [key points] Anything they need to approve: [items] </context> <task> Write a short message covering only what happened after they dropped, plus anything from before that was later reversed. Flag anything that assumes their approval, and ask for the one decision you need from them. </task> <format> Message under 120 words: what changed after you left, what now needs your approval, one direct question. No agenda replay, no thanks-for-joining opening. </format>

<context> Discovery call transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Prospect: [company, size, industry] Attendees on their side: [names, titles] Our qualification framework: [MEDDIC, BANT, or your own fields] CRM fields I have to fill: [list] </context> <task> Turn this call into CRM-ready notes. Fill each qualification field from what was actually said, quote the evidence, and leave fields empty with a note rather than inferring. Separate what the prospect stated from what I am assuming. </task> <format> Field by field: value, evidence quote, confidence. Then Next Steps with dates, Red Flags, and the three questions to ask on the next call to fill the gaps. </format>

<context> Sales call transcript: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] What they said they need: [requirements in their words] Objections raised: [list] Our offer and pricing: [details] Decision process they described: [who signs, timeline] </context> <task> Write the follow-up email that moves this to a proposal. Mirror their language rather than our product vocabulary, address the objection that will decide this deal, and propose one specific next step with a date instead of asking how they want to proceed. </task> <format> Email under 200 words: what I heard, how we address the main objection, what happens next with a date and a named owner on each side. Then a one-line alternative next step if the first is too fast for them. </format>

<context> Transcript of a call that ended without a decision: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] What it was supposed to decide: [the question] Why it stalled: [missing data, missing person, disagreement, ran out of time] Deadline pressure: [what happens if this keeps slipping] </context> <task> Write the honest recap. Say plainly that no decision was reached, capture the positions accurately so the next session does not restart from zero, and specify exactly what has to happen before the next attempt, with owners. </task> <format> Message with: No decision reached, Where each position stands, What is blocking a decision, What we need before next time with owners and dates, proposed date to reconvene. </format>

<context> Transcript (in the language it was spoken): [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] Recipient and their working language: [name, language] Formality expected: [formal, standard business, informal] Terms that must stay in English: [product names, contract terms, legal wording] </context> <task> Write the recap in their language at the right level of formality for their business culture. Keep the listed terms untranslated, and flag anything from the call where a translation could change the commercial meaning. </task> <format> Full email in the target language, then a short English summary of what it says, then a list of any wording you flagged as commercially ambiguous. </format>

<context> Person and their role: [name, tenure, role] The specific behaviour or results gap: [factual examples with dates] What I have already raised and when: [prior conversations] Outcome I need: [change in behaviour, plan, formal process] How they usually react: [defensive, shuts down, agrees then nothing changes] </context> <task> Script the conversation for a video call. Open in a way that does not trigger a defensive shutdown in the first thirty seconds, present the evidence factually, and build in the pause where I stop talking and let them respond. Prepare my response to each of their likely reactions. </task> <format> Script with: Opening lines verbatim, Evidence to state, The question that hands it to them, Branch responses for each likely reaction, Closing agreement with a date. Add a note on what to say if they get emotional. </format>

<context> The bad news: [delay, budget overrun, missed commitment, defect] Our responsibility in it: [honest assessment] Impact on them: [concrete] What we are doing about it: [remediation, timeline] What I can offer: [credit, scope change, escalation contact] Relationship history: [strong, strained, new] </context> <task> Prepare the call. Lead with the news rather than building up to it, be specific about what we got wrong without over-apologizing, and move quickly to the remediation. Prepare answers for their hardest questions, including whether this will happen again and whether they should be worried about the rest of the work. </task> <format> Opening statement verbatim, then Facts to state, Remediation, Hard questions with answers, Concessions in order of what to offer first. Add what not to say. </format>

<context> Meeting and purpose: [what] Attendees: [names, roles, seniority] Who dominates and how: [talks over people, long monologues, restates their point] Who goes quiet and why: [names, seniority gap, language, remote disadvantage] What I need from the quiet people: [their expertise on which topic] </context> <task> Design the facilitation. Use structures that make airtime a rule rather than a request, give me the exact phrases to interrupt a monologue without humiliating anyone, and give me the direct invitations that get a quiet expert to speak. </task> <format> Plan with: Structural choices for the agenda, Interrupt phrases word for word, Invitation phrases per quiet attendee, and one line on what to do if the dominant person ignores the structure. </format>

<context> What the deadlock is about: [the question] Positions and who holds them: [names, positions] What has already been tried: [arguments, data, escalation] Time left in the call: [minutes] What happens if we leave with nothing: [consequence] </context> <task> Give me a plan for the remaining time. Reframe the question so it is not the same argument again, identify what evidence would actually settle it, and prepare a fallback that produces a decision even if agreement is impossible. </task> <format> Plan with: Reframing question to ask out loud, Two structures to try in order with timings, What would resolve it factually, Fallback decision path, and the exact words to close the call either way. </format>

<context> Teams involved and the conflict: [who, what it is about] Each side's position and what is underneath it: [stated, actual] History: [how long, what has been tried] My role: [neutral facilitator, one of the parties, leadership] Constraint: [what is genuinely not negotiable] </context> <task> Write the facilitation script. Open by stating the shared goal and the ground rules, structure it so each side is heard before any solving starts, and keep the language neutral so neither side hears you taking the other one's framing. </task> <format> Script with: Opening and ground rules verbatim, Phase timings, Neutral phrasings for the contested terms, Questions that move from positions to interests, Closing agreement structure with owners. </format>

<context> Session: [purpose, total length, number of attendees] Output required from the breakouts: [decisions, ideas, drafts] Participants: [names, functions, seniority mix] Time available for breakouts: [minutes] Experience level of the group with this format: [used to it or not] </context> <task> Design the breakout structure. Decide group size and composition and say why, write the brief each room gets, set the time so groups do not stall or run dry, and design the report-back so it does not eat the rest of the session. </task> <format> Plan with: Room composition and reasoning, Brief to paste into the room, Timing including the warning at the halfway point, Report-back format with a per-room time limit, and what the host does during breakouts. </format>

<context> Transcript of a call that did not go how I wanted: [PASTE TRANSCRIPT] My name in the transcript: [display name] What I was trying to achieve: [goal] What actually happened: [outcome] </context> <task> Review my contributions specifically. Show me where I talked past someone, where I answered a question that was not asked, where I conceded too early, and where I missed an opening someone gave me. Be direct rather than encouraging, and quote the lines. </task> <format> List of specific moments: quote, what I did, what the better move was and why. Then one paragraph on the pattern across all of them, and two things to change in the next call. </format>