Writing action items that stick

I've been collecting failed action items for about a year. Items from boards, Slack messages, Notion pages, and emails that were marked as action items and never executed.

The patterns are consistent. Here are the failure modes — and the formula for items that actually get done.

### Failure mode 1: No verb

"Pricing model" is not an action item. It's a topic.

The verb is the instruction. "Review the pricing model" tells you what to do. "Finalize the pricing model" tells you something more specific. "Present three pricing options to the board by Friday" tells you everything.

Every action item must start with a verb. Not a gerund ("Reviewing the pricing model") — an imperative ("Review the pricing model"). Imperative is the register of instructions. Gerunds are the register of observations.

Failed: "Pricing model" Fixed: "Finalize pricing model for Q3 launch — three tiers, presented to founders by April 30"

### Failure mode 2: No owner

"Follow up with the customer" is an action item without an owner. In a meeting with six people, "the customer" will be followed up with by zero people, because each person assumes someone else is handling it.

Ownership doesn't have to be a full name. "Sarah" is fine. "[Design]" is fine. "PMs" is fine. What isn't fine is no one.

For teams where multiple people might own parts of an item: pick one primary owner and note the others. "Sarah (with Tom on the design side)" is better than "Sarah and Tom" because it's clear who's accountable.

Failed: "Follow up with the customer" Fixed: "Follow up with Acme — check on Q2 renewal decision. [Marcus]"

### Failure mode 3: No definition of done

"Improve the onboarding flow" will never get done because it's impossible to know when you're done. "Reduce onboarding to three screens or fewer" is done when onboarding has three screens or fewer.

A good definition of done is binary: either you've done it or you haven't. "Improve" is not binary. "Reduce to 3 screens" is binary.

Failed: "Improve the onboarding experience" Fixed: "Reduce new user onboarding to 3 screens — measured by first-tap to first snap [Design, Q2]"

### Failure mode 4: No urgency signal

Action items without timelines are treated as optional. Everything on your list has a timeline; items without an explicit one compete against items with one, and they lose.

You don't need a precise deadline for every item. "This sprint," "before the next sync," "by Friday" all work. What doesn't work is nothing.

Failed: "Set up the analytics dashboard" Fixed: "Set up the conversion funnel in PostHog — before the launch review [Engineering]"

### The formula

`` [Imperative verb] + [specific object] + [definition of done] + [owner] + [timeline] ``

Examples:

• "Write the onboarding copy for all three tiers — draft ready for review by April 18 [Marcus]"
• "Fix the payment flow bug — P0, before Tuesday release [Backend]"
• "Schedule the Q3 planning session — invite list sent, room booked, by EOD Friday [Sarah]"

### How BoardSnap applies this

The BoardSnap AI is prompted to write action items using this formula — imperative verb, specific object, ownership where marked, and timeline where indicated on the board. If the board has vague items ("pricing"), BoardSnap will generate an action item that's as specific as the board allows — and flag it as potentially ambiguous if the context is insufficient to be more specific.

When you snap a board and get back "Review three pricing scenarios with the founders — details TBD [Product]," that's the AI doing what it can with an ambiguous source item and flagging the gap. Your job is to fill in the timeline before you assign it.

### The one-sentence test

Read the action item to someone who wasn't in the meeting. If they can tell you: what to do, who does it, and when it's done — the item is written correctly. If they have to ask any of those three questions, fix the item before it leaves the room.