For your own business, or as a service you charge other businesses like yours for.
Nobody runs this lab yet. Take it, give it your hours and your prices, and it is yours.
The items to list, in order, with the supporting document each one calls for.
One resolution per item voted, with the vote result and abstentions named.
The account of the meeting, readable by a resident, distinct from the resolutions it does not replace.
The message that goes with the documents, saying what to check and by when.
GmailIn a six-hundred-person village, a council meeting always produces the same four documents: the summons with its agenda, the resolutions, the minutes, and the line in the register. None of it is hard or long once you have done it a hundred times. It is undoable when the clerk has retired, the post has been vacant for eight months, and a mayor elected in March is discovering procedure at the same time as the budget. A third of French village clerks leave by 2030, and the posts are not being filled. A lab does not replace a clerk: it produces the documents from meeting notes and leaves the council to decide what it signs.
Worth more in month six than in week one.
The collections belong to the lab, not to any single magik. Every magik reads them and every run adds to them, which is why this lab is worth more in month six than in week one.
They all start empty. The first run writes the first row.
It wears your name, not ours.
The same lab, under your name, your colours and your logo. Your customers never see ours.
AskMOJOOn the Pro plan, and not needed to take a lab. A fully bespoke theme exists as an upgrade, hand built rather than self-serve.
Gmail
NotionAnd whatever you already use: any tool available through an API or an MCP server, connected with your own account.
A tool built for exactly your job, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This is for the jobs nothing covers, or the ones spread across three tools today.
It does not deliberate and it does not vote: it formats what the council decided, from the meeting notes. Nothing leaves before signature, and the legality review stays what it is. The question is not whether the tool drafts, it is who checks, and that answer does not change.
Then you have somewhere to file the resolutions. This lab comes before: it produces the text from notes taken during the meeting, which management software generally does not do. If yours does, keep it.
That is the case it is written for. The mayor dictates or pastes their notes, reads through, signs. What the lab will never do is decide whether a matter falls to the council or to the mayor alone: that question goes to the prefecture or the local government centre, and this lab will not pretend to answer it.
Same material, once a year instead of once a month: a presentation note, a funding plan, resolutions to attach. The resolutions produced at the meeting serve directly as supporting documents, which saves hunting through a binder in February.
The honest question, and it comes before the tool: villages this size already pay vendors for accounting and civil registry, and one more line has to be justified to a council. A lab has the advantage of being priced per meeting rather than per year, which gives a comparison a council can actually read.
A tool built for exactly village clerks and rural mayors, usually alone with the minute book, and only that, will go deeper at that one job. This lab is for the jobs no tool covers, or the ones spread across three tools today, and it runs under your name.
Every audience is still open.
Nobody has taken a square on this idea yet. You declare your audience when you take the lab (“roofers in Brittany”, “plumbers around Paris”), and two people can start from the same idea on two different audiences without getting in each other’s way.
And it wears your name, not ours.
The bundle describes a lab that does not exist yet : the jobs it would do, and an example of each output.
Open Knowledge Format : plain markdown, re-importable into any agent. No account, no lock-in.
A messy first call becomes one page the client reads, corrects and signs. The scope stops moving.
A diagnostic you can charge for: where AI would pay off in this company, what it would cost, and what to do first.
Web search
Google SheetsGmailStill comparing tools? Best AI for writing.
Commune of Saint-Priest-la-Combe - Council summons
Meeting of Thursday 3 September 2026, 8:30pm, council room.
Agenda
Documents attached to the summons
Item 2: table of proposed transfers. Item 3: the three quotes received and the comparison table. Item 4: draft funding plan. Item 5: draft agreement.
One remark on item 4
It depends on item 3. If the council does not select a contractor tonight, the grant funding plan has no figure and item 4 will have to be deferred. The two items therefore go in that order, not separately.
Posted at the town hall and sent to councillors on 28 August 2026.
| No. | Subject | Vote | Next step |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-14 | Budget amendment no. 1 | 9 for, 0 against, 0 abstention | Send to the treasury |
| 2026-15 | School roof, contractor chosen | 7 for, 0 against, 2 abstentions | Notify, then item 4 |
| 2026-16 | 2027 grant application | 9 for, 0 against, 0 abstention | File before 31 January |
| 2026-17 | Village hall agreement | Deferred | Draft to revise, clause 6 |
The two abstentions on item 15 are named in the resolution itself: a councillor whose firm bid steps aside, and it is that mention that protects the decision.
Minutes of the council meeting of 3 September 2026
Nine councillors present out of eleven, two apologies with proxies given. Meeting opened at 8:35pm by the mayor.
The budget
The amendment transfers 12 000 euros from the roads line to the buildings line, made necessary by the next item. Adopted unanimously.
The school roof
Three quotes received, from 41 200 to 58 900 euros. The council selects the lowest bidder after reviewing the comparison table, the three offers being technically equivalent on materials.
Two councillors abstained and explained why: one is related to the manager of one of the firms consulted, the other considered the third quote better on warranty. Both positions are recorded in the register.
The grant
The funding plan adopted assumes 60 percent grant sought, 40 percent own funding. Application to be filed before 31 January 2027.
The village hall
Item deferred. Clause 6 of the draft agreement, on cleaning after events, struck the council as too vague. A new draft at the next meeting.
Any other business
A resident of the Combes hamlet reported faulty street lighting. To be inspected before the next meeting.
Meeting closed at 10:10pm.
Hello everyone, Here are the minutes of Thursday's meeting and the four resolutions. What I am asking you to check, and nothing else: the passage on the abstentions in item 15. I wrote down what each of you said at the time, and I would rather you confirmed the wording than found it in the register. Tell me before Wednesday the 10th about any factual error, a figure, a date, a name. After that I get it signed and sent on. Item 17, the village hall agreement, comes back on 1 October with clause 6 rewritten. If you have wording to suggest on cleaning after events, send it to me before then, it will save us time on the night. Have a good week, The town hall office