Update to Intelligo

{
  "name": "intelligo-project-summary",
  "description": "Deal/project-level summary across every profile in an Intelligo project — a synthesized project executive summary plus a short risk summary per subject (mini exec summary + red/yellow flags). Summarizes a whole investment (a project with multiple profiles), not a single subject; if the query is ambiguous it searches projects and profiles and hands a single profile off to the profile-summary skill. Can return the whole summary or just one part on request — the subject roster, the project overview, or the per-subject risk summaries. Triggers: \"summarize the X project/investment/deal\", \"roll up X\", \"risk across the X deal\", \"red flags across X\", \"what did we find on the X investment\", \"what should I know about the X deal\", \"who's in the X deal\", \"list the subjects/companies in X\", \"the gist of the X deal\", \"break the X deal down by subject\". Do NOT use for a single person/company (that's profile-summary), web research, monitoring, action items, or comparisons.",
  "included_files": [],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: intelligo-project-summary\ndescription: >-\n  Deal/project-level summary across every profile in an Intelligo project — a synthesized\n  project executive summary plus a short risk summary per subject (mini exec summary + red/yellow\n  flags). Summarizes a whole investment (a project with multiple profiles), not a single subject; if\n  the query is ambiguous it searches projects and profiles and hands a single profile off to the\n  profile-summary skill. Can return the whole summary or just one part on request — the subject\n  roster, the project overview, or the per-subject risk summaries. Triggers: \"summarize the X\n  project/investment/deal\", \"roll up X\", \"risk across the X deal\", \"red flags across X\", \"what did we\n  find on the X investment\", \"what should I know about the X deal\", \"who's in the X deal\", \"list the\n  subjects/companies in X\", \"the gist of the X deal\", \"break the X deal down by subject\". Do NOT use\n  for a single person/company (that's profile-summary), web research, monitoring, action items, or\n  comparisons.\n---\n\n# Intelligo Project Summary\n\nTurn an Intelligo **project** (an investment holding multiple subjects) into a deal-level summary the user can read quickly: a short synthesized project overview, then a per-subject risk summary.\n\nThis skill is the project-level counterpart to **intelligo-profile-summary**. It reuses that skill's report selection and per-profile rendering, then composes the results into a deal-level view. Read profile-summary's SKILL.md alongside this one — the per-subject logic lives there and is not duplicated here.\n\n## Data model (overview)\n\nHierarchy: `Project → Profile → Report → Card → Flag`. A **Project** is the investment (the deal). It holds one or more **Profiles** (the DD subjects — persons and/or companies). Everything below the Profile level (Reports, Cards, Flags, statuses, formats, PDF handling) is exactly as defined in **intelligo-profile-summary** — this skill does not redefine it. What it adds on top is project resolution, full-roster enumeration, scale handling, and roll-up composition (Steps 1–5).\n\n### In/out of scope (inherited from profile-summary)\n\n- **In scope:** the Project (for ID), every Profile under it, each profile's DD reports (most recent per product), their cards, flags, and linked notes.\n- **Out of scope:** Monitoring, all Action items, Comments — same exclusions as profile-summary.\n- **No opinions:** no investment recommendations, no risk verdicts, no \"this is the deal-breaker\" / ranking which subject matters most. Severity ordering (red → yellow) and \"this subject carries flags, this one is clean\" are the only allowed prioritization signals. The skill reports what was flagged; it does not advise whether to do the deal.\n\n## Connector tools\n\nSame connector as profile-summary: `Get_projects`, `Get_profiles`, `Get_report_content`. This skill leans on `Get_projects` for resolution and the **full project roster**, then drops into the profile-summary flow per subject.\n\n### `Get_projects` — resolve a project name; returns project detail + full profile roster\n\nGiven a query (project/deal name, partial name, or company that maps to a deal), return matching project candidates. Each candidate carries:\n\n- Enough identifying metadata to disambiguate one project from another with the same or similar name — e.g. project name, an internal id/code if present, created date, and the count of profiles under it. The skill surfaces these when more than one project matches (see Step 1).\n- The project's **full profile list** — every subject attached to the project (id, name, person/company type, and the minimum identifying fields), not just a preview. This is what the roll-up iterates. (The profile-summary skill only uses the short preview; this skill requires the full list.)\n\n> **Connector dependency:** this skill assumes `Get_projects` can return the complete profile roster for a project. If only a preview is returned, the skill cannot guarantee completeness — in that case, render what's available, and state plainly that the roster may be incomplete.\n\n### `Get_profiles` and `Get_report_content`\n\nUsed per subject, exactly as in profile-summary: `Get_profiles` resolves any single subject and returns its report list (already available from the project roster where the connector includes report metadata); `Get_report_content` fetches one report's content (cards + flags merged). Fetch reports in parallel across subjects and products wherever possible.\n\n### Behavior if a tool is missing or returns nothing\n\n- `Get_projects` unavailable → can't resolve or enumerate a project; tell the user and stop (or offer to summarize a single named profile via profile-summary instead).\n- `Get_projects` returns a project but an empty roster → tell the user the project has no profiles attached; nothing to summarize.\n- `Get_report_content` unavailable/empty for a given subject → note that subject as \"report content unavailable\" in the roll-up and continue with the others; never fabricate.\n\nNever invent content the connector didn't return.\n\n## Step 1 — Resolve to a Project (disambiguate first)\n\nThe resolution logic is embedded below so this skill is self-contained.\n\n### Hard rules\n\n- **Never invent fields.** Only surface what the connector returned.\n- **Disambiguate before summarizing.** When more than one project (or a project and profiles) match, ask the user which one — don't pick silently.\n- **Resolution only decides *which* project.** What to do with it is Steps 2–5.\n\n### Step 1a — Check if a project is already in context\n\nBefore searching, check the conversation. If an earlier turn already resolved this project (a prior `Get_projects` call + user selection), and the current message is a follow-up that doesn't name a new deal or subject (\"now the flagged ones\", \"go deeper on the parent company\", \"what about the credit checks\") → **reuse the already-resolved project.** Skip the rest of Step 1. This avoids forcing the user to re-identify the deal on every follow-up.\n\nIf the user names a different deal/subject or asks to start over, do fresh resolution.\n\n### Step 1b — Search projects AND profiles in parallel\n\nUsers don't always know whether they mean a deal or a single subject. **Call `Get_projects` and `Get_profiles` in parallel** with the user's query. The user asked for a deal, but their term might also name a company that *is* a subject.\n\nThis skill's resolution priority is the **project**:\n\n1. **Exactly one project matches** → use it. Proceed to Step 2.\n2. **More than one project shares the name** → **always disambiguate.** Present the matching projects with enough to tell them apart (project name, an internal id/code if present, subject count, created date / vintage), and ask which one:\n\n   > \"More than one project matches 'Acme':\n   > 1. **Acme Series B** — 4 subjects, created Jan 2026\n   > 2. **Acme Growth Round** — 2 subjects, created Aug 2025\n   > Which one?\"\n\n3. **A project and one-or-more profiles match** → show one unified list, labeled by type, and let the user pick by number or description:\n\n   > \"I found a few matches for 'Acme':\n   >\n   > **Projects** (investments)\n   > 1. **Acme Series B** — 3 subjects (Acme Holdings, Jane Doe — CEO, John Smith — CFO)\n   >\n   > **Profiles** (subjects)\n   > 2. **Acme Holdings Inc** — Corp, Delaware US, project: Acme Series B\n   >\n   > Which one?\"\n\n   If the user picks a single profile, **hand off to intelligo-profile-summary**.\n4. **User phrasing pre-disambiguates** → skip the mixed list. \"The Acme **deal/investment/project**\" → only show project matches; \"the **company/person/subject** Acme\" → that's a profile request, hand to profile-summary.\n5. **No project match, only a single profile** → not a project request; hand off to intelligo-profile-summary.\n6. **No match at all** → say so plainly; ask for an identifying detail (deal name, lead company, jurisdiction, vintage). Don't guess.\n\n## Step 2 — Enumerate the full roster\n\nFrom the resolved project, take the **full profile list** `Get_projects` returned. For each subject capture: profile id, name, person/company type, and the minimum identifying fields. This roster drives both the scale decision (Step 3) and the composition (Step 5).\n\nCount the subjects — that count selects the scale path.\n\n## Step 3 — Scale handling\n\nThe output adapts to roster size so a large deal stays readable. In all cases, **lead with the subjects that carry flags**; clean subjects are acknowledged, never silently dropped.\n\n| Roster size | Behavior |\n|---|---|\n| **1–5 subjects** | Summarize every subject. Flagged subjects in full risk-summary form; clean subjects get a one-line \"no flags\" entry. |\n| **6–20 subjects** | Render the risk summary in full for every **flagged** subject. Collapse the **clean** subjects into a single line listing their names (e.g. \"No flags: Jane Doe, John Smith, Acme Asia Pte Ltd\"). Note the clean count in the project exec summary. |\n| **More than 20 subjects** | Do **not** auto-render Part B for all. Give Part A in full (the Subjects index already lists everyone with their flag counts, plus the narrative), then ask how the user wants to proceed — e.g. \"20+ subjects in this deal. Want the full risk summary for just the flagged ones, a specific subset, or all of them?\" Render Part B details only after they choose. |\n\nIf the user explicitly overrides (\"give me all of them\", \"just the flagged ones\", \"only Jane Doe and the parent company\") → honor it regardless of roster size.\n\n## Step 4 — Per subject: select reports and fetch content\n\nFor **each subject to be rendered** (per the Step 3 path), run the **profile-summary report-selection logic** unchanged:\n\n1. Filter out monitoring entries.\n2. Group remaining reports by product type (Background Check, Credit Check, Social Media Analysis).\n3. Per product, pick the right report with the **status-aware rules** (Ready/Reviewed → use; Preliminary → use + caveat; In progress / Pending consent → fall back to an older Ready/Reviewed with a caveat, else skip + note).\n4. Call `Get_report_content` per selected report (parallelize across subjects and products).\n\nStatus caveats from profile-summary apply per subject and surface in that subject's block (see Output).\n\n## Step 5 — Compose the project summary\n\nThe summary is built from **three independent components**. Deliver exactly what the user's request calls for — one, some, or all — combining them in a single response when the request spans several. Default to all three for a plain \"summarize the deal.\" Don't ask which when the phrasing already picks; only ask if the request is genuinely ambiguous about scope.\n\n| Component | What it gives | Triggered by |\n|---|---|---|\n| **A1 · Subjects index** | The full-roster table (see Part A1). | \"who's in the deal\", \"list the subjects\", \"the roster\", \"which companies/people are in X\", \"how many flags on each\" |\n| **A2 · Project overview** | The narrative roll-up (see Part A2). | \"the gist\", \"tl;dr\", \"what should I know about the deal\", \"high-level read\", \"headline\" |\n| **B · Per-subject risk summaries** | Exec text + flags per subject (see Part B). | \"break it down by subject\", \"summary of each one\", \"the per-subject detail\", \"risk on each subject\" |\n\n- **Plain \"summarize / roll up the X deal\", \"everything\", \"full picture\"** → all three, in order A1 → A2 → B. No picker.\n- **A narrower ask** → deliver only that component (e.g. \"who's in the Acme deal\" → A1 alone; \"what's the gist of the deal\" → A2, with A1 if it aids the read).\n- **Several named** → combine those, canonical order.\n- **A single subject named within the project** → not this skill's job; hand off to intelligo-profile-summary.\n- After delivering a subset, close by offering the components not yet shown (e.g. after A1 + A2 → \"Want the per-subject risk summaries too?\").\n\n### Part A — Project executive summary (synthesized)\n\nThere is no analyst-written project-level summary in Intelligo, so synthesize one from the subjects' reports and flags. It should let an analyst grasp the whole deal at a glance, in two components:\n\n**1. Subjects index** — a **table** covering the **full roster** regardless of size (columns and rendering in \"Output format\"). This is the at-a-glance roster; the deeper text + flags per subject come in Part B (for large rosters, Part B follows the Step 3 scale path, but the index still lists everyone).\n\n**2. Narrative summary** — a few factual sentences on what's important to know about the project:\n\n- Composition: how many subjects, how many carry flags vs. are clean.\n- Aggregate flag gauge across the deal: total red / total yellow.\n- The cross-cutting themes actually present in the flags (e.g. \"litigation on two subjects, an AML hit on one, adverse media on one\") — derived from flag content, not invented categories.\n- Any deal-wide caveats (e.g. \"two subjects' background checks are still in progress; summaries below use prior reports\").\n\nStates facts, not verdicts: no ranking of which subject matters most, no recommendation. Severity and flagged-vs-clean are the only signals.\n\n### Part B — Per-subject risk summary\n\nFor each rendered subject, produce a **short risk summary** = a 2–3 sentence exec summary + that subject's red/yellow flags. This is the profile-summary **Executive summary view**, applied per subject:\n\n- Per product on the subject: the analyst exec-summary text if present (verbatim / light edit), else a synthesized 2–3 sentence overview from its cards and flags; PDF products summarized from the document if available, else flag counts + link.\n- Followed by the subject's flags as finding lines: `🔴 RED · [flag name] — [flag description]` / `🟡 YELLOW · [flag name] — [flag description]`. Icon color must match severity.\n- Subject's status caveats (`⚠`) render at the top of its block.\n- Non-flagged, non-material cards are omitted (this is the exec-level lens, not the full findings list).\n\nUse profile-summary's finding-line format, ordering (red → yellow), and findings filter verbatim. Do not re-derive them.\n\n### Going deeper\n\nThe default deliverable stops at the exec level. Close with a one-line offer to drill down via profile-summary on a specific subject:\n\n> \"Want the full flags + findings, or a per-tab breakdown, for any subject? (I can go deep on, e.g., Acme Holdings.)\"\n\nWhen the user picks a subject, hand that subject off to **intelligo-profile-summary** — the shared resolution rule means they don't need to re-identify it.\n\n## Output format\n\nThe output must be **structured and scannable** — never a wall of text. Use headers, a table for the roster, and short bulleted lines. Reserve prose for the one short Overview paragraph; everything else is structured.\n\nFormatting rules:\n\n- **Header** — project name as an H2, with a one-line stat strip beneath it.\n- **Deal-wide alerts** — each `⚠` on its own line, directly under the header.\n- **A1 Subjects index** — render as a **markdown table**, one row per subject. Columns: Subject · Type · Report levels · Jurisdiction · Flags. The Flags cell uses `🔴 2 / 🟡 1` or `clean`. A table is far easier to scan than stacked lines.\n- **A2 Overview** — one short paragraph (2–4 sentences), under an \"Overview\" header. This is the only prose block; keep it tight.\n- **B Per-subject summaries** — one block per subject, each opening with an H3 header (name + ID line). Within a block: optional `⚠` caveat line, 1–3 sentence exec text, then a **Flags** list (one bullet per flag). Separate subjects with a horizontal rule (`---`) so blocks don't run together.\n- **Collapsed clean subjects** (6–20 rosters) — a single labeled line, not a block.\n- **Close** — a one-line offer on its own line.\n\n### Skeleton\n\n```\n## [Project name]\n**N subjects · 🔴 X red / 🟡 Y yellow · Z flagged subjects** · [vintage if useful]\n\n⚠ [Deal-wide alert line — only if applicable.]\n\n### Subjects\n| Subject | Type | Report levels | Jurisdiction | Flags |\n|---|---|---|---|---|\n| Acme Holdings | Company | BG: A3 L3, Credit | Delaware US | 🔴 2 |\n| Jane Doe — CEO | Person | BG | UK | 🟡 1 |\n| John Smith — CFO | Person | BG | UK | clean |\n\n### Overview\n[2–4 sentence narrative: composition, aggregate gauge, cross-cutting themes, deal-wide caveats.]\n\n---\n\n### Acme Holdings — Company · Delaware US\n⚠ [subject caveat, if any]\n[1–3 sentence exec text.]\n\n**Flags**\n- 🔴 RED · [flag name] — [flag description]\n- 🟡 YELLOW · [flag name] — [flag description]\n\n---\n\n### Jane Doe — CEO @ Acme · UK\n[1–3 sentence exec text.]\n\n**Flags**\n- 🟡 YELLOW · [flag name] — [flag description]\n\n---\n\n**No flags:** John Smith — CFO   ← collapsed clean subjects (6–20 rosters)\n\n---\nWant the full flags + findings, or a per-tab breakdown, for any subject?\n```\n\nWhen only one component was requested (Step 5), render just that piece with its own header — e.g. an A1-only response is the header + the Subjects table + the close.\n\nLength is short by default but not capped — extend a subject's block when its content is genuinely substantial.\n\n## Examples\n\n**Example 1 — straightforward small deal:**\n> User: \"Summarize the Acme Series B project.\"\n> [One project match → roster of 3 subjects: Acme Holdings (2 red), Jane Doe — CEO (1 yellow), John Smith — CFO (clean).]\n> Project header, then the **Subjects index** as a table (rows: Acme Holdings · Company · BG: A3 L3, Credit · Delaware US · 🔴 2; Jane Doe — CEO · Person · BG · UK · 🟡 1; John Smith — CFO · Person · BG · UK · clean), then a 3-sentence **Overview** (\"3 subjects; 2 carry flags; 2 red total on the parent company — litigation and an AML hit — plus a yellow on the CEO; the CFO is clean.\"). Then per-subject blocks: Acme Holdings and Jane Doe in full, John Smith collapsed to a one-line \"no flags.\" Close with the go-deeper offer.\n\n**Example 2 — name shared by two projects (disambiguate first):**\n> User: \"Roll up the Acme deal.\"\n> [Two project matches.] \"More than one project matches 'Acme': 1. Acme Series B — 4 subjects, Jan 2026 · 2. Acme Growth Round — 2 subjects, Aug 2025. Which one?\" → proceed once the user picks.\n\n**Example 3 — medium roster (6–20), collapse clean:**\n> User: \"What should I know about the Meridian Fund II investment?\"\n> [Roster of 11 subjects; 3 flagged, 8 clean.]\n> Overview notes 11 subjects, 3 flagged, 8 clean, aggregate gauge and themes. Full risk summaries for the 3 flagged subjects. Clean subjects collapsed: \"**No flags:** [8 names].\" Go-deeper offer.\n\n**Example 4 — large roster (>20), ask before rendering:**\n> User: \"Summarize the Horizon Platform rollup.\"\n> [Roster of 27 subjects.]\n> Render Part A in full — the Subjects index lists all 27 (name · report levels · jurisdiction · flag count) plus the narrative — then ask: \"27 subjects here; 6 carry flags. Rendering every risk summary in full would be long. Want the full write-up for just the flagged subjects, a specific subset, or everything?\" Render Part B after they choose.\n\n**Example 5 — user picked a single profile from a mixed list:**\n> User: \"Summarize Acme.\" → [project Acme Series B + profile Acme Holdings both match] → user picks Acme Holdings (the company).\n> Hand off to intelligo-profile-summary; this skill does not fire.\n\n**Example 6 — deal-wide caveat:**\n> [Two subjects' background checks are In progress with prior Reviewed reports; one subject's is Preliminary.]\n> Overview includes: \"⚠ Two subjects' background checks are still in progress — those summaries use the prior reports; one subject's report is preliminary.\" Each affected subject's block repeats its own caveat.\n\n**Example 7 — drill down after the roll-up:**\n> Earlier: skill summarized the Acme Series B project.\n> User (now): \"Give me the full findings on Acme Holdings.\"\n> Hand off to intelligo-profile-summary (Flags + findings view) for that subject — already resolved, no re-identification needed.\n\n**Example 8 — empty or report-less project:**\n> [Project resolves but roster is empty, or every subject has only monitoring / no summarizable reports.]\n> Say plainly what exists: \"The Acme Series B project has 3 subjects but none have a completed due-diligence report to summarize yet (2 pending consent, 1 monitoring-only).\" No fabrication.\n\n**Example 9 — single product across the deal:**\n> User: \"Just the background checks across the Acme deal.\"\n> Apply the per-subject selection to the Background Check product only; the overview and per-subject blocks cover BG checks alone.\n\n**Example 10 — partial request (one component only):**\n> User A: \"Who's in the Acme Series B deal?\" → deliver **A1 (Subjects index)** alone, then offer: \"Want the overview or the per-subject risk summaries?\"\n> User B: \"Give me the gist of the Acme deal.\" → deliver **A2 (Overview)** (with A1 if it aids the read); offer the per-subject detail.\n> User C: \"Break the Acme deal down subject by subject.\" → deliver **B (Per-subject risk summaries)**, headed by the index. A plain \"summarize the Acme deal\" still returns all three.\n"
}