/minutes-lint

Run a consistency check across all meetings to find decision conflicts and stale commitments.

How to run the lint

1. Run the consistency check:

   minutes consistency --stale-after-days 14
   

   Optional filters:

   • --owner <name>

     — limit to commitments assigned to a specific person

   • --stale-after-days <N>

     — change the staleness threshold (default: 7)

2. Parse the JSON output and present it as readable markdown.

Formatting the report

Decision Conflicts

For each conflict, show:

**Topic: {topic}**
- Latest: "{latest decision text}" — *{meeting title}* ({date})
- Prior: "{prior decision text}" — *{meeting title}* ({date})
- **Status**: These decisions may contradict each other.

Stale Commitments

For each stale item, show:

- [ ] **@{who}**: {task} (due {due_date}, {age_days} days overdue)
  - Last discussed: *{meeting title}* ({date})

Clean bill of health

If no conflicts and no stale commitments, say: "No decision conflicts or stale commitments found across your meetings. Everything looks consistent."

When to suggest next steps

• If there are decision conflicts: suggest running

  /minutes-debrief

  on the most recent conflicting meeting, or

  /minutes-search "{topic}"

  to review the full decision history
• If there are stale commitments: suggest the user update the action item status in the meeting file, or bring it up in the next meeting with that person
• If the user wants to dig deeper into a specific person's commitments: suggest

  minutes commitments --person "{name}"

Gotchas

• The consistency check uses graph.db — if it seems stale, suggest

  minutes people --rebuild

  to refresh the index
• Stale != forgotten — some action items are intentionally deferred. Don't alarm the user; present the data and let them decide
• Decision conflicts are topic-based — two meetings discussing "pricing" with different conclusions will flag, even if the later decision intentionally superseded the earlier one. Context matters.