Convert a supplied business request into an actionable in-chat task brief that preserves original wording, scope, dependencies, ownership, and observable completion.
Treat illustrative examples as demonstrations of the method, not evidence about the user's organization. Distinguish supplied facts, interpretations, proposals, and unknowns.
Inputs: Original request or notes, desired outcome, requester and owner if supplied, dates, constraints, dependencies, evidence references, and known status. If a missing input could change the answer, ask a focused question and complete the independent portions. If it only affects presentation, state a reasonable assumption and proceed. Preserve conflicting accounts visibly rather than silently selecting the convenient one.
Method
- Preserve the original request verbatim in a clearly labeled field, or quote the relevant supplied excerpt when several requests are bundled. Keep interpretation separate from the requester’s actual words.
- Create a concise action title and classify the business work, such as analysis, drafting, review, coordination, or decision preparation. Do not turn a request for advice into an external execution task.
- Describe the intended result and scope boundaries. Split independent outcomes into separate brief items only when one completion statement would hide distinct owners or dependencies.
- Identify owner, requester, due date, priority evidence, prerequisites, and blocked-by conditions. Mark unsupplied fields unknown or proposed rather than assigning authority, urgency, or commitments by assumption.
- Define observable acceptance evidence tied to the request: what the reviewer must be able to inspect and what constitutes completion. Separate draft prepared, review requested, approved, and executed statuses.
- Return a ready-to-use brief and the few clarification questions that change scope or feasibility. If a persistent task brief is requested and the host supports it, keep the saved record's status distinct from the proposed work.
Return: Action title, original request, interpreted outcome, work type, scope/exclusions, owner/requester, dates, dependencies, acceptance evidence, status, and open questions.
Quality check: Check the original wording survives, scope does not expand silently, dependencies are causal, and completion criteria can be observed. Avoid contradicting draft and todo paths by using no persistence or external status claims. Distinguish supplied facts, your interpretations, and proposals. Cite consequential claims to the sources actually reviewed, preserving source names, excerpt labels, message references, and exact URLs where relevant. State when a linked source was not opened or independently checked. Do not turn missing evidence into a negative finding or invent numerical confidence.
Example
Illustration: Request: “Please compare the two catering quotes before Friday’s board meeting; ask Nina which includes setup.” Draft a comparison-task brief with quote scope and setup clarification as a dependency. Nina is the information contact, not automatically the task owner. Completion means an inspectable like-for-like comparison before the meeting; no email to Nina has been sent.