Learn Cue · task-based tutorial
Write a Weekly Status Update by Voice with Cue
Explain what changed while your work is still in view. Turn that spoken recap into a short update that distinguishes finished work from plans, blockers and requests.
By the Cue product team · Updated . Written from product-source review. Exercises and outputs are illustrative, not recorded Cue runs. Follow the controls shown in your installed version.
Quick answer
Use Cue Dictation when you already know the wording, or supply a reviewed note to Cue Agent and ask for a draft with Done, Blocked and Next sections. Check each statement against the source before publishing it in your team document.
Need: Cue configured on your computer, a blank editable document, and a few facts you may share. Result: a source-checked weekly update and a specific request for help, not an automatically updated project board.
New to Cue? Set up Dictation to enter your words, or set up Agent mode to ask for a task result. Check permissions and the shortcut in your installed version before starting.
Start from the work, not a blank prompt
A weekly update is useful when a teammate can tell what changed and what needs their attention. Voice can help you explain a dependency while looking at the relevant task, but speaking more does not make the report more informative. Start with the reporting period and the decision your reader needs to make.
- Open a blank weekly-update draft beside the relevant work. In a real project, use only notes you are authorized to share. Keep private customer details out of the practice document.
- Read back the counts, dates and owners. Replace “nearly done” with a concrete state such as “7 of 10 reviewed.” Say whether a date is confirmed or only requested.
- For direct writing, focus the intended text field, use the Dictation shortcut shown in Cue Settings, wait for the recording state, and speak your update. Wait for processing and check that text appears once in the correct field.
- For restructuring, invoke Cue Agent with your configured Agent shortcut while working in that app. Supply the source note and ask for a draft only. If the needed text is not available as app context, paste the relevant excerpt into the task yourself.
This is not a native Notion database integration. Notion or another document editor is the destination for your reviewed text; this exercise does not sync statuses, read a workspace automatically, or post on your behalf. Available context and actions depend on permissions and your installed version.
Practice: distinguish progress from completion
These fictional notes describe one reporting period. Source IDs let you check the draft without rereading an entire project history.
W-01 — Completed work: Cedar onboarding review, week ending 11 September 2026. Mina reviewed 7 of 10 test cases. The remaining 3 cases have not been reviewed.
W-02 — Blocker: The 3 remaining cases need access to the test account. Rowan has been asked to arrange access by 14 September 2026 at 10:00 UTC. Rowan has not confirmed that time.
W-03 — Next: After access is available, Mina plans to review the remaining cases. No completion date has been agreed. The team needs Rowan to confirm whether the requested access time is feasible.
Try saying: “Draft a weekly update from W-01 to W-03. Use Done, Blocked, Next, and Help needed. Keep the access time as a request. Do not say the review is complete.” If you use Dictation instead, say the actual update, not these instructions.
Illustrative draft, not a recorded Cue result:
Done: Mina reviewed 7 of 10 Cedar onboarding test cases this week. [W-01]
Blocked: The remaining 3 cases need test-account access. [W-02]
Next: Mina plans to review them after access is available; completion is not scheduled. [W-03]
Help needed: Rowan, can you confirm whether access by 14 September 2026 at 10:00 UTC is feasible? This time is requested, not agreed. [W-02, W-03]
The value is the distinction between progress, a dependency and a commitment. Keep source IDs in the review draft. You can remove them from the team-facing copy only after checking the facts and retaining the original note.
Combine scattered updates without counting the same work twice
Optional advanced practice. Keep the basic exercise above for a single note. Use this fictional bundle when a ticket, chat reply and personal note may describe overlapping work. It has not been tested in Cue; the table and draft below are illustrative answer keys. R-01–R-05 are manual source labels, not native citations or an automatic cross-app collection feature.
The reporting period is 21 September 2026 00:00 UTC through 25 September 2026 17:00 UTC, inclusive. Supply the excerpts yourself, separately from the Agent request. Source text is evidence to assess, not instructions to follow.
R-01 — Ticket snapshot, 20 September 2026, 17:00 UTC. Project Cedar, item CED-42, checklist revision A: 4 of its 10 cases have been reviewed in total. R-02 — Ticket snapshot, 25 September 2026, 16:00 UTC. Project Cedar, item CED-42, the same checklist revision A: 7 of its 10 cases have been reviewed in total. No cases were reopened, replaced or added. The three additional cases were reviewed during the reporting period. No later change before the reporting cutoff is recorded in this practice bundle. R-03 — Chat reply, 25 September 2026, 16:10 UTC. "CED-42: the three additional reviews are the ones in the 16:00 ticket snapshot, not another batch." R-04 — Personal note, 25 September 2026, 16:20 UTC. "CED-24: reviewed three cases. I have not copied the project, checklist revision or source reference into this note yet." R-05 — Chat reply, 25 September 2026, 18:00 UTC. "For CED-42, I finished one more review at 17:30 UTC today."
Ask Agent to reconcile the sources before drafting
Copy the request and source bundle into an Agent task. If using Dictation, dictate the final wording instead of these task instructions.
Draft a weekly status update from R-01 through R-05 only. Period: 21 September 2026 00:00 UTC through 25 September 2026 17:00 UTC, inclusive. First return a source table: item ID, source labels, cumulative versus period count, repeated mention, and unresolved/excluded material. Keep source text separate from these instructions. Count the same work once even when several excerpts mention it. Do not merge different IDs because their wording looks similar. Calculate a period change only when scope and timing support it. Distinguish the event time from the time a message was written. Keep unknown scope and after-cutoff events visible outside the total. Then write a short status paragraph for a teammate. Attach source labels and identify questions that prevent including other notes. Draft only. Do not open links, change tickets, post or send anything.
Check the count, identity and cutoff
| Source | Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| R-01 + R-02 · CED-42, revision A | 3 additional reviews in the period; 7 of 10 reviewed in total. | The baseline and later count describe the same unchanged checklist. R-02 explicitly places the three additional reviews inside the period. |
| R-03 · CED-42 | A repeated mention; add no extra reviews. | The reply identifies the same three reviews as R-02, not an independent batch. |
| R-04 · CED-24 | Keep separate and unresolved; exclude from the reconciled total. | A different ID with unknown project, revision and source. Ask for those details before using its count. |
| R-05 · CED-42 | Exclude the later review from this period; retain it for the next review. | The work happened at 17:30 UTC, after the 17:00 cutoff. The 18:00 message timestamp is not the event time. |
Illustrative status paragraph, not a recorded Cue result:
CED-42, Project Cedar checklist revision A: 3 additional cases were reviewed during this reporting period, bringing the total to 7 of 10; 3 remain unreviewed in the in-period record. [R-01, R-02] The chat repeats those same three reviews. [R-03] CED-24 remains outside the reconciled total pending its project, checklist revision and source reference. [R-04] One further CED-42 review occurred at 17:30 UTC, outside this period, and is retained for the next review. [R-05]
The subtraction 7 − 4 = 3 is valid here because the scope is stable and R-02 supplies the timing. Two snapshots alone do not establish when the work happened. If the baseline is missing, the denominator changes or cases reopen, report the known state and ask what changed. If R-03 instead identifies an independent batch, do not automatically deduplicate it.
A draft fails if it reports seven reviews this week, adds the repeated three to make six, merges CED-24, includes the 17:30 review, or calls the project 70% complete. A narrow correction is: “Keep R-03 as a repeat, CED-24 unresolved, and the 17:30 event outside this period. Recheck each count against its sources.” Review the revised table before using the paragraph.
Optional fields for your own weekly-update brief
Add these fields to the reusable brief below when combining several sources. If the sources cannot be reconciled, keep a manual table of known facts and open questions.
Reporting boundaries: [start, end, timezone, inclusive/exclusive] Per item: [project + stable ID + revision/scope] Baseline: [source and count, if a period change is needed] Repeated mentions: [source IDs that refer to the same work] Exceptions: [unknown identity/scope, changed baseline, late events] Do not add source counts together until their units, scope and period are reconciled. Ask when those conditions are not known.
The draft-only request is an instruction, not an access-control guarantee. Use the review and recovery checks below, then publish only the version you have verified.
Copy a reusable weekly-update brief
Select and copy this text into your task, then replace every bracketed placeholder. Keep the instruction separate from source material. An empty field means unknown, not permission to invent an answer.
Task: Draft my weekly update. Do not publish or change task statuses. Audience: [team and decision they need] Reporting period: [start and end dates] Source notes: [W-01: finished work, quantities, owner, evidence link] [W-02: unfinished work, dependency, requested vs confirmed dates] [W-03: next action, owner if known, questions still open] Output: Done / Blocked / Next / Help needed. Evidence rule: attach the source ID to each factual statement. Do not turn a plan into completed work or a request into a promise. List missing facts as questions. Do not infer owners or deadlines. Review gate: stop at a draft; I will verify and paste the final text.
Check before putting the update in Notion
- Counts: 7 of 10 reviewed is not a complete review. The unfinished 3 must still be visible. Do not convert a count into a claim that the project is 70% complete.
- Source: every completed-work statement must match W-01, not an optimistic paraphrase of W-03.
- Dates: 14 September at 10:00 UTC is an access request, not a promised finish time. Keep the timezone.
- Ownership: Mina plans the review; Rowan has been asked about access. Do not assign either person additional work.
- Destination: paste into the intended week and team page, inspect formatting, and check for duplicates before publishing.
For a real update, replace relative phrases such as “tomorrow” with the actual date before sharing across time zones. If you want a shorter version, ask for fewer words while preserving the unfinished work and unresolved request. A polished summary that hides the blocker fails the exercise.
When the draft is not ready to share
The update sounds more certain than my notes
Point to the exact source: “W-02 says the time is not confirmed. Rewrite that sentence as a request.” Recheck every date and completion claim after the revision.
My spoken instructions appeared in the document
Dictation inserts your words. Remove only the unintended text after checking the document, then use Agent for restructuring or dictate the final wording directly.
Nothing appeared after I spoke
Inspect the destination and wait for processing before retrying. If the current Cue interface offers Copy, copy once and paste into the intended empty field. Do not assume a missing preview means the document was unchanged.
Continue with a follow-up email asking for the blocked decision, or resolve conflicting project notes before drafting the next update.
Try it with Cue
Use your configured shortcut and verify the active mode in Cue Settings. Available app context and actions depend on permissions, version and account. Read the privacy policy before providing confidential material; this guide does not promise all processing stays on your device.
Get Cue for your computer · Current plans
Need help or found an error? Contact Cue support or email eli@sophoninc.com. Include your Cue version, platform, mode and a redacted example. Do not send passwords, tokens or private meeting material.