# Weekly Team Briefing Generator — SBW-006 > Auto-draft your recurring team talks — safety briefings, toolbox talks, weekly huddles — grounded in YOUR reference material with citations, so a 45-minute writing chore becomes a 5-minute review. - **Category:** Team Ops - **Time to value:** 1 weekend - **Typical running cost:** $5–15 LLM usage - **Stack:** An LLM (Claude), A folder of markdown files as the knowledge base, A scheduled run (cron, Make/n8n, or a saved prompt), Optional: PDF/slides export - **Provenance:** Production toolbox-talk and safety-meeting generator built for an NCSO safety practice - **Source:** https://smallbizworkflows.com/workflows/weekly-team-briefing-generator - **Kit:** ships with INSTALL.md (one-shot Claude Code build), CLAUDE.md, SKILLS.md, WALKTHROUGH.md --- ## TL;DR > Keep a folder of YOUR reference material and a queue of topics. Every Monday the > LLM drafts a tight ~250-word briefing from the next topic — grounded only in your > folder, with citations back to the source files. You review, fix a line, deliver. > The blank page is gone; the expert (you) stays in charge. ## The problem this solves If you run crews in construction, trades, or field services, you owe your people a regular safety talk — often legally. Office teams have the weekly huddle. Either way the pattern is the same: the talk matters, writing it is nobody's favourite job, and so it gets improvised badly or recycled until everyone tunes out. This workflow keeps the talks relevant (Tuesday's near-miss becomes Monday's topic), grounded (drafts come only from your material, cited), and cheap (five minutes of review instead of forty-five of writing). ## The full picture ``` THE END-TO-END FLOW ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ┌─────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────┐ │ KNOWLEDGE FOLDER │ │ TOPIC QUEUE │ │ (yours, markdown) │ │ topics.md — a list │ │ │ │ │ │ regs/ ─ OHS code │ │ - ladder safety │ │ procedures/ ─ yours │ │ - Tue near-miss: │ │ incidents/ ─ learns │ │ pinch point │ │ equipment/ ─ manuals│ │ - winter startup │ └──────────┬──────────┘ └──────────┬──────────┘ │ │ └──────────┬─────────────────┘ ▼ Monday 6 am (cron) ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ LLM DRAFTER │ │ next topic + ONLY the │ │ relevant folder files │ │ │ │ → ~250-word talk │ │ → 3 discussion questions│ │ → citations per point │ │ → watermarked DRAFT │ └────────────┬────────────┘ ▼ ┌─────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────┐ │ HUMAN REVIEW (you) │ ────▶ │ DELIVER + ARCHIVE │ │ read every word, edit, │ │ talks/2026-06-15- │ │ approve — 5 minutes │ │ ladder-safety.md │ │ │ │ + date + attendance │ │ NOT optional. Ever. │ │ = compliance record │ └─────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────┘ ═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ ``` ## What you need | Piece | What it does | Pick | |---|---|---| | Knowledge folder | The only thing drafts may be built from | Plain markdown files in folders — the folder structure IS the database | | Topic queue | What's next, and why it's relevant | One `topics.md` file you append to from your phone | | LLM | Drafts from your material, cites sources | Claude (Sonnet tier for grounded drafting) | | Scheduler | Runs it every Monday | cron, Make/n8n, or just a saved prompt you trigger | | Archive | Proof you delivered | A `talks/` folder with date + attendance | ## Phase 1 — The knowledge folder (do this once, well) ``` briefing-kb/ ├── regs/ │ ├── ab-ohs-part9-fall-protection.md ← your province's actual rules │ └── ab-ohs-part12-ladders.md (paraphrase Crown regs freely; ├── procedures/ NEVER paste licensed standards │ ├── our-ladder-inspection.md like CSA — reference by clause │ └── our-lockout-procedure.md number only) ├── incidents/ │ └── 2026-06-09-pinch-point-nearmiss.md ← Tuesday's lesson, anonymized └── equipment/ └── genie-lift-quickref.md ``` The rule that makes this trustworthy: **the AI drafts only from what's in the folder, and cites which file each point came from.** An ungrounded LLM will happily invent plausible-sounding regulations. Grounding plus citation makes every error visible at review. ## Phase 2 — The topic queue ``` topics.md ───────────────────────────────────────────── - [ ] pinch points ← from Tuesday's near-miss (incidents/2026-06-09…) - [ ] ladder inspection ← seasonal, roof work starting - [ ] heat stress ← forecast says 30°+ - [x] lockout refresher ← delivered 2026-06-08 ``` Append topics the moment they occur to you — from the truck, from a near-miss report, from a customer site. The near-miss-to-Monday-talk pipeline is when briefings stop being noise and start being listened to. ## Phase 3 — The drafter **The prompt (copy, fill, schedule):** > You are drafting a {{length:250}}-word briefing for {{audience: a residential > construction crew}} on the topic: {{topic}}. > > Use ONLY the attached reference files. If the files don't cover something, say > "ASK: …" instead of filling the gap yourself. > > Structure: > 1. Why this matters on OUR sites this week (2 sentences — use the incident file > if one is attached). > 2. The 3 things to actually do, in plain crew language. Short sentences. No jargon. > 3. Three discussion questions that make someone answer from their own experience. > > After every point, cite the source file in brackets, like [regs/ab-ohs-part12]. > Quote regulations in 15 words or less. Reference CSA or other licensed standards > by clause number only — never reproduce their text. > > Header: topic, date, "DRAFT — FOR REVIEW BY {{reviewer_name}}". > > REFERENCE FILES: > {{relevant files from briefing-kb/}} **What a good draft looks like:** ``` ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ TOOLBOX TALK — Pinch Points 2026-06-15 │ │ DRAFT — FOR REVIEW BY KAMAL │ ├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Why this matters this week: On Tuesday one of our crew │ │ nearly lost a fingertip resetting the lift gate. It took │ │ two seconds and nobody was being careless. │ │ [incidents/2026-06-09-pinch-point-nearmiss] │ │ │ │ Three things to do: │ │ 1. Gloves on before the gate moves — not after. [proce…] │ │ 2. One hand on the control, one hand visible. [equipment…] │ │ 3. Call "hands clear" before anyone activates. [proce…] │ │ │ │ Talk about it: │ │ • Where's the worst pinch point on our current site? │ │ • What made Tuesday's near-miss so easy to walk into? │ │ • What would you tell a first-week apprentice about gates? │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ## Phase 4 — Review, deliver, archive ``` DRAFT lands (Monday 6 am) │ ▼ YOU read every word ── fix what's off ── this gate is the whole system's │ integrity. The AI assists; the ▼ qualified human signs. DELIVER at the huddle │ ▼ ARCHIVE: talks/2026-06-15-pinch-points.md + who attended │ ▼ in regulated trades this archive IS your compliance record when the auditor asks ``` ## Folder structure (the whole system) ``` briefing-generator/ ├── CLAUDE.md ← the AI-builder brief (ships in this kit) ├── briefing-kb/ ← the knowledge folder (Phase 1) │ ├── regs/ procedures/ incidents/ equipment/ ├── topics.md ← the queue (Phase 2) ├── talks/ ← dated, delivered archive (Phase 4) ├── prompts/ │ └── drafter.md ← the prompt, versioned └── scripts/ └── monday.ts ← pick next topic → gather files → draft → notify you ``` ## Hard rules learned in production - **Every output is watermarked DRAFT** and reviewed by the qualified human before it reaches a worker. The AI assists; it never substitutes. - **Ground every draft in your own sources** with per-point citations. Reject any draft with an uncited claim. - **Quote regulations ≤ 15 words with citation; never reproduce licensed standards** (CSA and similar) — clause numbers only. - **~250 words.** A toolbox talk is five minutes. Longer drafts get skimmed, not delivered. - Anonymize incident files — lessons, not blame. ## Numbers to watch | Metric | Healthy | Where it comes from | |---|---|---| | Prep time per briefing | ~5 min (was 30–45) | your watch | | Drafts needing major rewrite | < 1 in 5 after week 3 | your review notes | | Topics from real events | ≥ 1 in 3 | topics.md sources | | Archive completeness | 100% — every delivered talk filed | talks/ folder | ## Week-one checklist - [ ] Knowledge folder has ≥ 8 real files across regs/procedures/incidents - [ ] Monday run produces a draft with a citation on every point - [ ] Plant a fake fact gap (topic the folder doesn't cover) — draft says "ASK:" instead of inventing - [ ] Draft quotes a regulation — 15 words or less, cited - [ ] Draft references a CSA-type standard — clause number only, no text - [ ] Your review takes under 10 minutes and improves the draft (it should — you're the expert) - [ ] Delivered talk lands in talks/ with date + attendance ## Troubleshooting - **Drafts feel generic:** the folder is thin on YOUR procedures and incidents. The magic is your material, not the model. - **Citations don't check out:** tighten the prompt to require file names per point, and reject any draft with an uncited claim. Spot-check weekly. - **Crew tunes out:** stop running evergreen topics back-to-back. Alternate: one from a recent event, one seasonal, one refresher. - **The "ASK:" lines pile up:** good — that's your list of missing knowledge-base files. Write one per week. - **Talks run long:** enforce the word count in the prompt and cut the warm-up sentences; crews respect brevity.