360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

Executive Summary

该 Skill 提供撰写执行摘要的结构化模板与写作原则,要求输入源文档或主题、目标受众、所需决策与篇幅格式,输出结论前置、含关键发现、选项对比、具体建议、下一步及不作为风险的摘要,并附四维评分标准与质量检查清单,可按不同受众调整框架。

mohitagw15856
mohitagw15856
热度 12.46
最近更新 2026-07-14 23:44:49
分类:效率依赖:纯提示词应用场景:摘要总结 / 报告撰写 / 模板

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add executive-summary
Metadata
name
executive-summary
description
Write an executive summary for any document, report, or proposal. Use when asked to write an executive summary, management summary, briefing paper, or one-pager for senior stakeholders. Produces a structured summary that busy executives can read in under 3 minutes and act on.
homepage
https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/executive-summary.html
metadata
{"openclaw":{"emoji":"🔗"}}

Executive Summary Skill

Writes executive summaries that busy decision-makers actually read — front-loaded with conclusions, structured for skimming, ruthless about what to include.

Required Inputs

  • Source document or topic (paste or describe)
  • Audience (CEO / board / investor / minister / client / committee)
  • Decision or action needed (what should the reader do after reading?)
  • Length limit (1 page / 2 pages / 500 words)
  • Format (formal report / slide / email / briefing paper)

Core Principle

An executive summary is NOT a summary of the document. It is a standalone document that:

  • States the conclusion upfront — not at the end
  • Contains only what the reader needs to make a decision
  • Can be understood without reading anything else
  • Recommends a specific action

Output Structure


[Title]

Executive Summary Prepared for: [Audience] | Date: [Date] | Author: [Name]


Bottom line up front: [The most important thing. The recommendation or finding. 2-3 sentences. A reader who only reads this should know what you are asking or telling them.]


Background (why this matters): [2-3 sentences. Minimum context to understand the bottom line. Not the history — just what the reader needs now.]


Key findings / analysis:

  • [Finding 1]: [One sentence — specific and evidence-based]
  • [Finding 2]: [One sentence]
  • [Finding 3]: [One sentence]

Options considered: (include only if a decision is being presented)

Option Benefit Risk Recommendation
[Option A] [Benefit] [Risk] Recommended
[Option B] [Benefit] [Risk] Not recommended

Recommendation: [Specific. "We recommend [action] because [reason]. This will [outcome]." Not "we suggest consideration of options."]


Immediate next steps:

  • [Action 1 — specific, with owner and date]
  • [Action 2]

Risks of inaction: [What happens if the reader does nothing]

Full report: [Reference to where the full document can be found]


Adapting for Different Audiences

CEO/MD: Lead with financial or strategic impact. 1 page. Make the decision binary. Ask in sentence one. Board: Lead with governance or risk. Frame against organisational objectives. State specifically what you need from them. Investor: Lead with return or opportunity. Specific numbers. 1 page. Anticipate "why now." Minister/senior public sector: Lead with public benefit or policy alignment. Include cost-benefit framing. Client: Lead with their problem. Show you understand before presenting recommendation.

Scoring Rubric (0–40)

Score any output of this skill before handing it over; 32+ is ship-quality.

Dimension 0 5 10
Bottom line placement Conclusion appears only at the end, after chronological summary Recommendation appears early but hedged, or split across sections The ask or finding is unambiguous within the first three sentences and repeated nowhere it doesn't need to be
Standalone completeness Unreadable without the source document; leans on unexplained references Mostly standalone but assumes context the named audience may lack A reader with no other material can understand the situation and decide from this page alone
Actionability "Options for consideration" with no owners, dates, or stated ask Recommendation is specific but next steps lack owners or dates Specific recommendation, next steps each with owner and date, and risks of inaction quantified
Audience fit & length Author-priority framing, over the length limit Fits the limit but framing is generic — same summary would go to any audience Framed to the named audience's decision context (financial/governance/return/policy) and within the limit

Quality Checks

  • Bottom line in first 3 sentences
  • Standalone — no need to read full document
  • Recommendation is specific
  • Fits length limit
  • Written for audience priorities not author priorities
  • Next steps have owners and dates

Anti-Patterns

  • Do not summarise the document chronologically — an executive summary that follows the structure of the source document is not an executive summary, it is an abstract
  • Do not bury the recommendation at the end — executives read the first paragraph and skim the rest; the ask must be in sentence one or two
  • Do not use the same summary for different audiences — a CEO and a board member have different decision contexts and require different framing
  • Do not include background that the reader already knows — every sentence of background must earn its place by making the bottom line more actionable
  • Do not leave the "risks of inaction" section vague — a summary that does not quantify what happens if the reader does nothing removes the urgency needed for a decision

Example Trigger Phrases

  • "Write an executive summary of this report: [paste]"
  • "Summarise this document for the board: [paste]"
  • "Create a one-pager from this proposal for the CEO"
  • "Turn these findings into an exec summary"