Feishu Work Review Timemachine#

Overview#

Create a compact, high-signal review of a user's recent work from Feishu materials. Focus on what the user actually drove or owned, not everything discussed in meetings.

Workflow#

1. Define scope first#

Clarify or infer:

• time range: last week / last month / specific dates
• output form: concise recap / weekly breakdown / monthly summary / boss-facing version
• destination: chat reply only, or create/update a Feishu doc

If the user already gave a clear scope, do not ask again.

2. Gather source materials from Feishu#

Prefer this order:

1. Search the user's recent docs/wiki nodes
2. Prioritize docs created by or owned by the user
3. Read key docs in full only when needed
4. Prefer summaries / structured notes first, then raw transcript docs for validation

Useful source types:

• meeting notes and transcripts
• work-in-progress docs
• project plans
• technical方案 / design docs
• quality / metrics docs
• wiki pages tied to ongoing initiatives

Do not try to read everything. Read enough to identify repeated themes and evidence of ownership.

3. Separate real work from meeting noise#

Do not treat every meeting mention as the user's work.

Use these signals to infer stronger ownership:

• the user is the doc owner / creator / primary editor
• the user is the main speaker framing goals, tradeoffs, or next steps
• action items are explicitly assigned to the user
• the user is pushing the plan, organizing follow-up, or coordinating POCs
• the same initiative appears across multiple docs with the user in a central role

Treat these as weaker signals:

• the user merely attended the meeting
• another person's project status appears in notes
• broad team discussion without assigned ownership
• AI-generated meeting summary claims not supported elsewhere

When uncertain, downshift wording:

• use “参与推动 / 协同推进 / 讨论并判断”
• avoid overstating as “主导完成”

4. Extract only the core themes#

Compress the material into a few workstreams, usually 3-5:

• platform / product / project track
• AI / efficiency / technical exploration track
• metrics / governance / methodology track
• cross-team coordination track

For each workstream, capture only:

• what changed
• what the user specifically drove
• why it mattered

Delete or skip:

• optional commentary
• long caveats
• repeated explanations
• every subtask from meeting minutes
• alternate interpretations unless the user asked for analysis

5. Write in layers#

Default output order:

1. one-paragraph core conclusion
2. 3-5 core workstreams
3. weekly breakdown if requested
4. one-sentence summary

If the user says “keep only the core”, reduce to:

• core conclusion
• core workstreams
• optional one-line weekly view

Output pattern#

Compact monthly review#

Use this structure:

markdown

# 时光机回顾｜过去一月主要工作总结

## 核心结论
[1 short paragraph]

## 核心主线
### 1. [主线]
- [核心动作]
- [核心动作]

### 2. [主线]
- [核心动作]

## 按周回顾
### 第 1 周：[关键词]
[1-3 lines]

### 第 2 周：[关键词]
[1-3 lines]

## 一句话总结
[1 sentence]

Boss-facing version#

Make it shorter and more outcome-oriented:

• progress
• scope / influence
• cross-team traction
• next-step signal

Avoid process-heavy wording.

Feishu doc creation/update#

When the user asks to create or write a Feishu doc:

• create the doc once a solid draft exists
• if permissions block the action, tell the user to complete the authorization card and then resume
• once created, prefer overwriting the draft if the user asks to simplify aggressively
• when refining, keep the same doc unless the user asks for a new one

Style rules#

• Write in concise Chinese unless the user asks otherwise
• Prefer short sections over long prose
• Remove “可选项” and hedging text unless uncertainty is material
• Use strong verbs for high-confidence ownership, softer verbs for medium-confidence involvement
• Default to fewer bullets, not more
• Keep the final document skimmable in under 1-2 minutes unless the user asked for depth

Anti-patterns#

Do not:

• dump a list of all meetings
• copy AI meeting summaries verbatim
• equate attendance with ownership
• preserve every nuance when the user wants a crisp recap
• keep “next-step suggestions” if the user asked for a finished summary

Final check#

Before delivering, verify:

• Is this mostly about the user's actual work, not everyone else's?
• Did I collapse repeated themes into a few clear workstreams?
• If asked to simplify, did I remove optional sections rather than just shorten sentences?
• Would the user immediately recognize this as accurate and useful?