File
SMF·READ-AI
Received on
31.07.2026
Reviewed on
28.09.2026
Exhibits annexed
3
Questions
4

SMF·READ-AI

Can a prompt replace Read AI?

Meeting notes — meeting transcription and AI notes

Almost Verdict recorded on 28.09.2026 · Verified on 31.07.2026
Price
$19.75/moSource: read.ai · Checked on July 31, 2026
Per year
$237
Build time
A week
Votes
0 votes
YesAlmost (checked)Not yet

Exhibit tracking slip

Exhibit A The prompt
Exhibit B What you lose
Exhibit C Why people still pay: capture reliability, integrations, and collaboration
Exhibit Q Questions

Verdict

Computing basic speaking-time-per-participant stats and a simple sentiment score per segment from a transcript is a real weekend build using an open sentiment-analysis model. What doesn't survive: Read AI's more sophisticated engagement modeling and its calendar-triggered automatic recording across a whole team's meetings.

Exhibit B — What you lose

Exhibit A — The prompt

Received on31.07.2026
Build a meeting-analytics tool computing basic speaking-time and sentiment stats from a transcript, on top of this catalogue's Avoma-style local transcription approach. Use Python with FastAPI, whisper.cpp for transcription with speaker diarization, manual correction, same approach as the Avoma entry, and a lightweight open sentiment-analysis model, a small HuggingFace transformer model run locally, for per-segment tone scoring. After transcribing and speaker-labeling a recording, compute: total speaking time per participant as a percentage of the meeting, a simple timeline chart of sentiment score over the meeting's duration, and a basic 'most positive' and 'most negative' segment callout. Present these as a summary dashboard alongside the transcript. Be explicit in the README that this is a lightweight, unvalidated heuristic, not a scientifically validated engagement model — sentiment analysis on transcribed speech, missing tone-of-voice nuance, is genuinely imprecise, and presenting it as more authoritative than it is would be dishonest. Do not build calendar-triggered automatic recording, cross-meeting analytics over time, or video-based engagement signals — those are out of scope. Needs hosting to run continuously, or can run on a personal machine for occasional use; no external API key required for the local sentiment model.

Opening prefills the prompt — press enter to run it.

Exhibit B — What you lose

  • B.1 more sophisticated, validated engagement modeling
  • B.2 calendar-triggered automatic recording across a team
  • B.3 cross-meeting participant analytics over time
  • B.4 video-based engagement signals like attention and camera-on time

Prior art

Exhibit C — Why people still pay: capture reliability, integrations, and collaboration

Computing speaking time and basic sentiment is a weekend script; validating that an engagement score actually means something useful, across many meeting types and speaking styles, is a harder, longer-term modeling problem.

Questions

How accurate is the sentiment scoring?

Treat it as a rough, unvalidated signal, not a scientific measurement — sentiment analysis on transcribed text alone misses tone-of-voice nuance, and this build is upfront about that rather than presenting the score as more authoritative than it is.

Does it track engagement across multiple meetings over time?

No — each meeting is analyzed independently. Cross-meeting participant analytics is real additional scope this build doesn't include.

Does it need a camera feed to measure engagement?

No — it only works from the audio and transcript, so there's no camera-on-time or attention-tracking signal, unlike some engagement tools.

What does it cost to run?

Hosting to run continuously, or nothing extra on your own machine — the sentiment model runs locally with no external API fee.

Receipt

Already built this yourself?