Share your best AI workflow. We could show it to 2M+ people.

I love reading, but my Goodreads TBR list keeps growing faster than I can get through it. After years of adding books, I had forgotten what was actually there and was wasting time scrolling whenever I needed to choose my next read. I asked Claude to analyze my reading history, 4-star and 5-star ratings, author patterns, and recurring genres to create a profile of my book personality. I then used that profile to select and rank the next 50 books from my TBR list. Because I enjoy matching books to the season, I also asked Claude to organize the recommendations by seasonal feel. Now I have a reference list that makes it easier to decide what to read next. Step-by-step: 1. I exported my library data from Goodreads. 2. I uploaded two files to Claude: my Read list and my To-Be-Read list. 3. I used the prompt below to generate a personalized reading roadmap based on my book personality. 4. I used the resulting list as a reference so I would not spend as much time deciding what to read next. PROMPT I have attached two CSV files: 1. My Read list. 2. My To-Be-Read list. Create my book personality profile by analyzing my reading history, my 4-star and 5-star ratings, author patterns, and recurring genres. Using that data, filter and rank my To-Be-Read list to build a personalized roadmap of the next 50 books I should read from that list. Evenly organize recommendations into 4 seasonal blocks based on these descriptions: - Autumn: Atmospheric, moody, or suspenseful books with a cozy but engaging pace. - Winter: Immersive, complex, or cozy books (slower burns or dense world-building). - Spring: Fresh, character-driven, or thought-provoking fiction with a steady pace. - Summer: High-energy, immersive, or breezy books (fast-paced page-turners). Next, generate an interactive digital bookshelf widget to display the recommended books. The design should feature: - A warm, premium editorial color palette. - Minimalist style cards for each book displaying Title, Author, and color-coded genre badge. - Interactive navigation tabs at the top to toggle between the four seasons. - A functional "Mark as Read" click action on each card that visually updates a progress ring or tracker.

Organic social content is one of the best sources of ideas for ads, so I built a workflow that finds short-form videos performing well in my niches, analyzes why they work, and rewrites the strongest hooks for my brand. Apify scrapes Instagram Reels by hashtag and TikTok videos by keyword across three niches: AI, productivity, and career growth. The workflow filters for English-language videos posted within the last 15 days that are 15–90 seconds long and have more than 50,000 plays. It then ranks them by engagement rate rather than views alone. A simple log file tracks every video I’ve already analyzed, so the workflow doesn’t process the same video twice. ElevenLabs transcribes each video’s audio. Claude then extracts the exact opening line, identifies the hook formula and video structure, and writes a version of the hook for my brand. Everything is compiled into one dated document with the top three discoveries, the strongest hook from the run, and any new patterns I haven’t tried yet. With one command—"Run research"—I get about 20 proven hooks and video structures to test in ads for less than $1 per run. Step-by-step: 1. I use Apify to scrape Instagram Reels by hashtag and TikTok videos by keyword across the AI, productivity, and career growth niches. 2. I filter the results for English-language videos posted within the last 15 days, 15–90 seconds long, with more than 50,000 plays. 3. I rank the remaining videos by engagement rate instead of views alone. 4. I check a log file to skip videos I’ve already analyzed. 5. I use ElevenLabs to transcribe each video’s audio. 6. I ask Claude to extract each video’s exact opening line, hook formula, and structure, then rewrite the hook for my brand. 7. I compile the results into one dated document with the top three discoveries, the strongest hook from the run, and new patterns to test. 8. I run the workflow with the command "Run research" to generate about 20 hooks and video structures for ad testing at a cost of less than $1 per run.

Midlifecurious is a newsletter for women navigating midlife—honest, funny, and allergic to being talked down to. Its Sunday issue, the Midlife Missive, is a roundup covering health, wellness, money, beauty, and family. My sister, Claire, edits it; I build the machine behind it. That machine is Missive, a five-part publishing intelligence system that runs the newsletter as one closed loop: scan → triage → publish → measure → remember. It monitors Reddit, search trends, and RSS to identify what midlife women are paying attention to before those topics reach our feeds. Discovery pulls in those sources, ranks every feed using a click-rate-based quality score, and lets Claire triage articles into the week’s issue. Curation composes Sunday’s newsletter and drafts the introduction in her voice. Performance reads the Mailchimp results back into the system and feeds them into the rankings, so strong sources rise and weak ones fall over time. Underneath all four stages is Memory: a vector-searchable corpus of every article, save, rejection, and the reasoning behind each decision. Memory is the real spine of the system. It lets Missive ask editorial questions such as “Have we covered this before?” and “Is this source still earning its slot?” instead of requiring one person to hold everything in her head. We’re a two-person operation: I build with Claude Code, and Claire edits. The system runs on one database for under $25 a month. I built it because the alternative was Claire drowning in a Feedly-and-spreadsheet routine that discarded everything as soon as an issue shipped. We had no record of what we had run and no feedback on what actually landed. My bet is that the corpus is the moat. Claire’s editorial taste—every save, rejection, and “cornerstone” stamp, with the reasoning stored alongside the decision—is a training set no one else has. A system that remembers turns her job from synthesizer into judge. Missive is deliberately internal-only: no SaaS and no customers, ever. That frees me to build for our exact workflow instead of a hypothetical buyer, and to build for 2028 instead of this quarter. The near-term payoff is a calmer Sunday. The long-term goal is a proprietary editorial-intelligence layer we could never buy off the shelf—the foundation for the research and audience products that come next. Step-by-step: 1. I monitor Reddit, search trends, and RSS for topics that midlife women are paying attention to. 2. I pull those sources into Missive and rank each feed using a click-rate-based quality score. 3. Claire triages the ranked articles into the week’s Midlife Missive. 4. Missive composes Sunday’s newsletter and drafts the introduction in Claire’s voice. 5. I import the Mailchimp results so the system can update source rankings based on performance. 6. Missive stores every article, save, rejection, “cornerstone” stamp, and the reasoning behind each decision in a vector-searchable corpus. 7. We use that memory to check whether a topic has already been covered and whether a source is still earning its place. 8. I build and maintain the internal system with Claude Code, while Claire handles editing, using one database that costs under $25 a month.

I built a backend operations system for my husband’s general contracting business. It manages new leads, bids and estimates, in-progress jobs, receipts, expense tracking, job photos, invoicing, and other functions he needs—all in one app built with ChatGPT and Base44. I rolled it out in phases. Phase one focused on tracking jobs and their status, phase two added financials, and phase three introduced executive functions. Phase four will cover marketing, although he does not need that right now because he is solidly booked for months. Step-by-step: 1. I built an all-in-one backend operations app using ChatGPT and Base44. 2. In phase one, I added tracking for jobs and their current status. 3. In phase two, I implemented financial functions, including receipts and expense tracking. 4. In phase three, I added executive functions along with other operational features such as leads, bids and estimates, job photos, and invoicing. 5. I planned marketing features for phase four, but postponed them because the business is solidly booked for months.

I made an orchestration skill to help me build faster while using my expensive Astra and Fable tokens carefully. The skill plugs into Astra or Fable and delegates tasks that can happen in parallel to multiple subagents running cheaper models suited to the work. This is especially useful for researching or finding data on the web or on my computer, analyzing code, collecting context, and indexing. The most expensive, newest models focus on maintaining delegation control, doing the difficult reasoning and strategic planning, and judging whether everything is coming together correctly. The cheaper agents handle the lighter-weight work, especially implementing code from the plans. The core idea is simple: the expensive model plans, briefs, and judges; cheaper agents do the reading and building. When I ask Claude or GPT to build the skill, I specify five things: Step-by-step: 1. I define a triage ladder: work can happen inline, with one agent, through a parallel fan-out, or in a multi-stage workflow. I choose the approach based on the task shape and include examples from my domain. 2. I define parallel versus sequential execution based on data dependencies. Independent pieces run in parallel, while anything that needs another piece’s output runs afterward. I never split one change into separate planner, coder, and tester roles. 3. I define model routing with a mandatory model pin: judgment work goes to the mid-tier model, mechanical bulk work goes to the cheap model, and every agent call names its model so nothing silently uses premium billing. 4. I define a brief template and a return-envelope cap. Every delegation includes the goal, inputs, output file path, definition of done, and constraints. Every agent returns a 250-word summary instead of raw files. 5. I define a cost gate with specific numbers. Below N agents, the workflow proceeds automatically; above N agents, it states the estimate and waits for approval.

When I’m continuing a book series or a show season and have forgotten key plot points—especially in fictional stories with large casts—I use NotebookLM to research a spoiler-free refresher before starting the new season or latest book. I used this approach with the new *Murderbot* series and the latest science-fiction book by James S. A. Corey, who wrote *The Expanse* and the *Leviathan Wakes* series. After loading the sources, I ask NotebookLM to create a slide deck with illustrations of the key characters, their relationships, and a quick dossier for each one. This gives me a visual anchor for the characters and earlier plot lines without revealing future events. I also want a hero image designed as a slide, cover, or thumbnail to promote this workflow. It should use and represent the NotebookLM logo and the logos of any other relevant tools, track down their current branding where possible, and turn these .dcs into HTML slide decks.

I built a job application workflow that goes beyond finding vacancies and generating generic CVs. First, GPT helps me scan for vacancies that match my practical requirements, interests, skills, and preferred types of work. The more useful part starts when a vacancy looks genuinely promising. I connected GPT to Canva and created several “base CVs” for the sectors and roles I was interested in. Instead of using one universal template, I designed each CV to fit the visual and cultural tone of a particular type of work. For example, a front-desk role, a back-office administrative position, and an assistant role in a creative company may involve overlapping skills, but they communicate very different expectations. Each base CV therefore uses different layout choices, colour use, visual tone, and photo selection. For every version, I review several possible photos and choose the one that best matches the role and the impression I want to convey. When I apply for a specific vacancy, GPT helps turn the relevant base CV into a more personalized version. Instead of rewriting my entire work history, we emphasize the experience, tasks, strengths, and values that are genuinely most relevant to that role. The same applies to motivation letters. Rather than generating a generic corporate letter, GPT uses a tone of voice shaped through months of conversation with me. The goal is for the application to sound recognizably like me while still matching the language, priorities, and culture of the vacancy. Before building this workflow, I did everything manually. For a vacancy that felt worth applying to, I typically spent around two hours refining the CV and motivation letter alone, not including the time spent searching for the vacancy. Even a small typo in the final application email could undermine hours of careful work. Now, once I decide a vacancy is a good fit, the full personalization process takes around twenty minutes on average. That includes selecting the right base CV, adapting the emphasis, refining the letter, checking the tone, and preparing the final application. The workflow works across several layers: vacancy discovery, role and sector matching, base CV selection, adapting experience and values, adjusting visual tone, personalizing the letter, final review, and application. What I like about this approach is that personalization is not limited to inserting keywords from a vacancy. It includes content, visual identity, emphasis, tone, and context. The result is a small family of CVs rather than one document being stretched awkwardly across every possible job. Each version keeps the same underlying career history while presenting the parts that matter most for a particular type of role. The biggest improvement is not only speed but consistency. The workflow reduces repetitive manual rewriting while keeping each application specific, personal, and carefully matched to the role. It turns roughly two hours of manual polishing per strong vacancy into about twenty minutes of collaborative refinement, with fewer opportunities for small final-stage errors to spoil an otherwise strong application. Step-by-step: 1. I use GPT to scan for vacancies that match my practical requirements, interests, skills, and preferred types of work. 2. When a vacancy looks promising, I identify the relevant sector, role, and type of impression I want to convey. 3. I use Canva and GPT to create and maintain several base CVs, each with its own layout, colour use, visual tone, and photo selection. 4. For each base CV, I review several possible photos and choose the one that best fits the role and the impression I want to convey. 5. I select the base CV that best matches the vacancy. 6. I adapt the CV by emphasizing the experience, tasks, strengths, and values that are genuinely most relevant instead of rewriting my entire work history. 7. I use GPT to personalize the motivation letter in a tone shaped through months of conversation with me, while matching the vacancy’s language, priorities, and culture. 8. I check the tone, review the application for small errors such as typos, and prepare the final application. 9. I complete the personalization process in around twenty minutes on average instead of spending roughly two hours on manual polishing for a strong vacancy.

I built a playful GPT workflow called Prosperity Oracle, inspired by the astrology and mystical magazine columns I loved in the 1990s. It is deliberately not financial advice, forecasting, or decision support. It is a small ritual of fun: part horoscope, part creative prompt, and part retro-internet weirdness. Instead of asking GPT to optimize something useful, I wanted to recreate the slightly magical feeling of opening a magazine and finding a mysterious prediction written just for me. Sometimes AI does not need to increase productivity. Sometimes it can simply make the day a little stranger and more delightful—and, on some days, inspire my artwork. Step-by-step: 1. I drew inspiration from the astrology and mystical magazine columns I loved in the 1990s. 2. I built Prosperity Oracle as a playful GPT workflow that produces a horoscope-style experience. 3. I framed it as a ritual of fun, creative prompting, and retro-internet weirdness—not as financial advice, forecasting, or decision support. 4. I used the format to recreate the feeling of discovering a mysterious prediction written just for me. 5. I let the results serve as creative inspiration for my artwork.

I first create my own shortlist of cultural events and collect all the relevant links in a simple text document. Then I give the document to ChatGPT along with my planning criteria. The goal is not to have AI decide what I should attend. I have already chosen the events that interest me. The useful part is turning that scattered shortlist into a realistic yearly plan. ChatGPT checks the event and venue pages, gathers the practical information, and organises everything into a chronological overview divided by month. Under each month, it lists the selected events in date order, including the day, date, location or cultural venue, a short description, and relevant ticket prices. This is especially useful because pricing systems differ between venues. Discounts, subscriptions, social tariffs, and reduced rates may apply in completely different ways. ChatGPT can compare those structures and help me understand what each event would actually cost instead of relying on the headline ticket price. The second planning layer is logistics. For each event, I assess how realistic the trip is by public transport, including the journey there and, importantly, whether getting home after the event is still feasible. I also use separate scores for how strongly I want to attend an event and how easy or difficult the logistics are. This makes it much easier to compare several months at once and decide where my cultural budget and energy are best spent. If an event is too expensive or logistically awkward, ChatGPT can look for practical alternatives, such as another performance date, the same production at a closer venue, a cheaper option, or a similar event that fits the plan better. Step-by-step: 1. I create a personal shortlist of cultural events and collect the relevant links in a simple text document. 2. I give the document to ChatGPT together with my planning criteria. 3. I have ChatGPT check the event and venue pages and organise the selected events into a chronological, month-by-month overview. 4. I include each event’s day, date, location or cultural venue, short description, and relevant ticket prices. 5. I compare discounts, subscriptions, social tariffs, and reduced rates to estimate the actual cost of each event. 6. I assess the public-transport journey to and from each event, including whether getting home afterward is feasible. 7. I score each event separately for how strongly I want to attend it and how easy or difficult the logistics are. 8. I use those comparisons to decide where my cultural budget and energy are best spent. 9. For events that are too expensive or logistically awkward, I ask ChatGPT to identify alternatives such as another performance date, a closer venue, a cheaper option, or a similar event that fits the plan better. The result is a structured yearly planner built from my own cultural shortlist: chronological, budget-aware, and grounded in the realities of public transport.

I built a workflow called PeopleSparkles for researching people connected to creative fields, schools, collectives, residencies, local art scenes, and cultural networks. The workflow starts from a defined group of people, for example teachers, alumni, artists, current or former members of an association, residents, or associates connected to a specific academy, organization, or cultural scene. A typical research request can be as simple as: “Look at this art website and identify all current and former residents and associates. Build a list. Then research them in batches of ten, checking their websites and other relevant sources, and write a short description of their work. Deliver the results in a format that can be imported into my local database.” Before each new research run, I provide GPT with a ZIP containing the current state of the PeopleSparkles database. This means the research starts from the existing corpus rather than from scratch. New people can be added, existing entries can be expanded, and previously researched people can be recognized before new material is prepared for import. The actual database lives locally on my computer. Apart from the initial development of the code and the research needed to create new lists of people, the database itself runs locally. Once a new batch has been researched and imported, browsing, organizing, scoring, annotating, and using the material does not require the whole corpus to be sent back for analysis. The database also generates a human-readable HTML version with a designed layout, so the research is not trapped inside raw data or spreadsheets. I can browse the people and their notes visually as a small personal research publication, while the underlying structured data remains available for future additions and processing. The “Sparkles” part is personal. I can add my own notes and scores to each person to capture whether their work sparked something in me, and if so, how. That might be curiosity, recognition, inspiration, aesthetic attraction, a strong question, a surprising association, or simply the desire to look again. This means the database does not only record who someone is and what they make. It also records my evolving relationship to their work. Over time, that creates a second layer on top of the research corpus: not just a map of creative people, but a map of resonance. The database also includes a “Surprise me” function that brings up a person from the collection without me choosing them deliberately. This helps break habitual search patterns and allows older, less obvious, or previously overlooked entries to resurface. Someone I barely noticed months ago can suddenly become relevant in a completely different creative context. The purpose is not to create conventional biographies. I am interested in the sparks around a person: what they make, the media and themes they work with, the organizations or people they connect to, and which traces may lead somewhere unexpected. This is particularly useful for creative ecosystems where information is fragmented across artist websites, academy pages, exhibition archives, old posters, association websites, interviews, catalogues, and small cultural organizations. The workflow gathers those fragments into a cumulative research corpus. It also allows the research to grow organically. One artist may lead to a collective, a teacher to a former student, an exhibition to another maker, or an old membership list to someone whose work would never have appeared in a conventional search. In simple terms: existing local database → new source or people list → GPT-assisted discovery and research in batches → import-ready structured data → local database → HTML browsing, notes and scores → surprise rediscovery → new creative connections The result is a living creative research database that combines external research with personal resonance, so I can not only discover people, but also trace which work actually sparks something in me over time.

I built a workflow to evaluate whether communication with a legal counseling service was as slow and incomplete as it felt. Email was my primary—and necessary—communication channel with them. I had become increasingly dissatisfied with delayed replies, partial answers, and questions that seemed to remain unresolved. Rather than relying only on memory or frustration, I asked GPT to review the relevant Gmail correspondence and turn it into a structured communication inventory. The workflow identified my outgoing questions, their replies, and whether each question had been fully answered, partially answered, or left open. From that inventory, we could calculate concrete indicators such as the median response time, the longest delay between a question and a substantive reply, and the number of questions that remained unresolved or were only partly addressed. This was useful because long email threads can create a distorted sense of what happened. A few frustrating exchanges can dominate memory, while other delays or omissions disappear into dozens of messages. Structuring the correspondence made the pattern measurable. The analysis was not meant to decide whether the counselors were “good” or “bad.” It was meant to answer narrower questions: How quickly were questions usually answered? Which ones were not answered? Were replies resolving the issues raised, or only responding to part of them? Afterward, we created a clear list of the questions that were still open. I used that list as a set of dossier questions when moving the case to another counselor, turning the analysis into practical continuity rather than just a complaint about the past. In simple terms: Gmail correspondence → question-and-response inventory → response-time and completeness analysis → unresolved-question list → handover to another counselor What I liked about this workflow is that it turned a vague feeling that “this communication is not working” into a documented overview I could actually use. Step-by-step: 1. I gathered the relevant Gmail correspondence with the legal counseling service. 2. I asked GPT to identify my outgoing questions, the counselors’ replies, and the status of each question. 3. I classified each question as fully answered, partially answered, or left open. 4. I calculated indicators including the median response time, the longest delay before a substantive reply, and the number of unresolved or partly addressed questions. 5. I created a clear list of the questions that remained open. 6. I used that list as dossier questions when handing the case over to another counselor.

I built a workflow to examine complaints I had about a local bureaucratic service and check whether my account of what happened was supported by the written record. I was concerned about delays, incomplete handling, and the way my case progressed after I gave feedback about a harmful aspect of the service and asked for a different person to handle the dossier. That request was refused. Afterwards, I felt that the process had become slower, more confusing, and more prone to mistakes. Rather than asking GPT to confirm that the service had handled things badly, I used it to test my own interpretation against the evidence. I asked GPT to review the relevant emails and dossier communications, reconstruct the chronology, and identify requests, replies, delays, unresolved issues, and changes in how the case was handled over time. We then compared the periods before and after my feedback and request for reassignment. The central questions were deliberately neutral: Were my complaints grounded in the correspondence? Did the handling of the dossier objectively become slower or more incomplete afterwards? Were there concrete errors or unanswered questions in the record? Or was I remembering the experience as worse than the documentation supported? This distinction mattered to me. The workflow was not designed to produce a verdict or turn frustration into evidence after the fact. It was designed to challenge my assumptions and separate what I felt from what could actually be demonstrated. Where the documentation supported a complaint, we could point to the relevant chronology, delays, unanswered questions, or inconsistencies. Where the evidence was incomplete or ambiguous, that was noted too. The result was a more grounded account of the case: not “I know this was handled terribly,” but “these are the parts of my experience that are supported by the written record, these are the parts that remain uncertain, and this is where the timeline changed.” In simple terms, the workflow was: emails and dossier communications → chronology reconstruction → before-and-after comparison → review of delays, errors, and unresolved issues → evidence check against my complaints → a grounded account of what can and cannot be supported. What I liked about this workflow was that it used AI as a reality-checking tool rather than an agreement machine. It helped me test whether my criticism was actually anchored in the record before I relied on it in further communication. Step-by-step: 1. I gathered the relevant emails and dossier communications about my case. 2. I asked GPT to reconstruct the chronology and identify requests, replies, delays, unresolved issues, and changes in how the case was handled. 3. I compared the period before and after my feedback about a harmful aspect of the service and my request for reassignment, which was refused. 4. I examined whether the record showed that the process became slower or more incomplete, and whether it contained concrete errors or unanswered questions. 5. I separated points supported by the documentation from points that remained incomplete or ambiguous. 6. I used the resulting chronology and evidence check to create a grounded account of what my complaints could and could not demonstrate.

I built a personalized news workflow called “TastyHookedFish” as an antidote to the feeling that news is limited to crisis, conflict, and collapse. It periodically searches for genuinely interesting, positive developments across science, climate, medicine, conservation, technology, culture, and social progress. The goal is not to create a feed of cheerful fluff, but to surface meaningful developments that provide evidence that useful things are happening in the world. The workflow also tries to avoid repetition, so the same feel-good stories do not keep resurfacing simply because they are popular. The result is a personalized news feed that does not ignore reality, but deliberately widens the lens. Step-by-step: 1. I set up a personalized news workflow called “TastyHookedFish.” 2. I configured it to periodically search for positive developments across science, climate, medicine, conservation, technology, culture, and social progress. 3. I focused the workflow on meaningful developments rather than generic cheerful stories. 4. I added a way to avoid repeatedly surfacing the same feel-good stories because they are popular. 5. I use the resulting feed to stay informed while deliberately widening my view of what is happening in the world.

I built a workflow called InnerWeather to help me understand fluctuations in energy, pain and mood over time, in the context of neurodivergence and a chronic muscular pain condition. The workflow creates lightweight daily scans and a weekly overview. Its purpose is not to diagnose symptoms or pretend that every change has a single cause. Instead, it helps make patterns visible across time: when energy drops, when pain increases, when stimulation or emotional load seems higher, how recovery unfolds, and which combinations tend to appear together. The daily scans are possible because I naturally talk to GPT throughout the day, sometimes in very short updates and sometimes in longer conversations, about how things are going, what I am doing, how my body feels, how much energy I have, and what seems to be affecting me. InnerWeather uses those scattered moments as observational material. It does not require me to fill in a formal tracker several times a day. The information is already present in the conversations I am having. The daily scans do not reduce an entire day to one fixed state. They map changing moments across the day, using colour-coded states and paying attention to common transitions between them. That makes it possible to see not only how I felt, but how my internal state moved: whether high stimulation tends to be followed by fatigue, whether pain appears after certain kinds of activity, or whether a low-energy period gradually shifts into recovery. This matters because capacity can vary significantly within one day. A difficult morning does not necessarily define the whole day, and a good afternoon does not erase what happened before it. The workflow is also explicit about uncertainty. If there was not enough input during a particular day to support a meaningful observation, the daily scan says so rather than filling in the gaps. The same applies to the weekly overview: if the available material is too sparse or uneven to support a pattern, that limitation is recorded instead of turning absence of information into a conclusion. The weekly overview brings the daily fluctuations together and looks for recurring sequences, transitions, clusters and recovery patterns across the week rather than treating each day as an isolated event. An important part of the workflow is that the weekly review is also collaborative. When the overview is generated, I use it as a starting point to think together with GPT about what patterns seem to be emerging, whether the current colour codes and transitions are capturing them well enough, and what might need to change in the workflow itself. That means InnerWeather is not a fixed tracker. The task evolves with the patterns it is trying to observe. If a recurring state, transition or distinction is missing, we can refine the categories, adjust the scan, or change the weekly interpretation so the system becomes better at representing what is actually happening. The aim is practical rather than medical: to get a more realistic sense of capacity and recovery over time, so I can make better decisions about pacing, rest, creative work, appointments, and how much I can reasonably take on. I especially like that the workflow treats fluctuations as information rather than failure. Instead of asking only, “Why was I worse today?”, it can reveal a broader sequence: what came before, how the state changed, how long it lasted, and what recovery looked like afterwards. Over time, InnerWeather becomes both a personal pattern archive and an evolving observation tool. In simple terms: day-to-day conversation → colour-coded fluctuation map → transitions across the day → weekly pattern review → collaborative interpretation → refine the task → better future scans The goal is not to predict my body perfectly. It is to keep improving the map while remaining honest about what the available information can and cannot support.

I built a second workflow that scans my conversations daily for ideas worth developing, especially strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and thoughts that may have seemed minor when they first appeared. Instead of turning everything into tasks, it creates an incubator: a place where interesting material can remain dormant until it connects with something new. The daily scan looks for fragments with creative or exploratory potential. They do not need to be fully formed ideas. A small observation, an odd comparison, a half-finished concept, a recurring image, or a funny side remark can all be worth keeping if they might become meaningful later. Once a week, the incubator revisits the material collected during the previous days. That weekly revisit makes connections across separate conversations more visible. Something that looked isolated on Tuesday may suddenly echo a thought from Friday or fit a project that did not yet exist when the original idea appeared. The important part is that the incubator does not treat every interesting thought as something that must immediately become productive. Some ideas benefit from being left alone for a while. They can sit next to other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful only when a new context gives them meaning. The workflow is less about extracting the “best ideas” and more about preserving creative potential while allowing patterns to emerge gradually. It also surfaces unfinished experiments and research leads that I might otherwise forget, without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. That distinction matters to me: not everything valuable needs an action item. Some things are seeds, references, questions, jokes, aesthetic directions, or possible future worlds. Over time, the incubator becomes a kind of creative compost layer on top of the conversation archive: new material is gathered daily, revisited weekly, and allowed to combine into directions that would be difficult to plan deliberately. In simple terms: daily conversation scan → promising fragments → weekly revisit → emerging connections → incubation → later rediscovery and development The goal is not to force ideas into projects. It is to keep good material alive long enough for the right project to find it. Step-by-step: 1. I scan my conversations each day for strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and other fragments with creative or exploratory potential. 2. I preserve promising material in an incubator instead of immediately turning every item into a task. 3. I keep small observations, odd comparisons, half-finished concepts, recurring images, funny side remarks, seeds, references, questions, aesthetic directions, and possible future worlds—even when they are not fully formed. 4. I revisit the material collected during the previous days once a week. 5. I look for connections across separate conversations, including links between ideas that initially seemed isolated or between fragments and projects that did not yet exist. 6. I allow ideas to remain dormant, sit alongside other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful when a new context gives them meaning. 7. I resurface unfinished experiments and research leads without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. 8. I let the material combine gradually so that new directions can emerge through later rediscovery and development.

I built a small GPT automation called PatternSpeak that periodically looks back across my conversations for ideas, themes, or approaches that keep resurfacing over time. It is not meant to analyze me or turn recurring thoughts into tasks. Its job is much simpler: occasionally say, in effect, “Hey, this idea keeps coming back. Maybe there is something here.” I like it because repetition can be meaningful without being urgent. Sometimes an idea disappears for weeks and then returns in a completely different context. PatternSpeak helps me notice those echoes without forcing them into a productivity system. It feels less like tracking and more like having a friendly observer tap me on the shoulder when a thread has quietly become a pattern. It works very well with the scan and analysis workflow I also shared here. Step-by-step: 1. I use PatternSpeak to periodically look back across my conversations. 2. It identifies ideas, themes, or approaches that keep resurfacing over time. 3. When it notices a recurring thread, it surfaces it as a gentle prompt rather than turning it into a task. 4. I review the recurring ideas and notice whether they have become meaningful patterns, even when they return in different contexts. 5. I use the scan and analysis workflow I also shared here alongside PatternSpeak.

I built a workflow for turning large ChatGPT conversation exports into a usable personal and creative archive instead of simply storing them as backups. The archive is processed incrementally. The inventory is built offline, and conversations that have already been indexed are not needlessly reanalyzed on every run. Each new export is compared with the existing archive, and only newly added conversations or conversations that have been revisited, extended, or otherwise changed are processed again and updated in the inventory. This keeps the workflow lightweight while allowing the archive to evolve over time. A conversation can remain stable for months, then become relevant again and receive new material without forcing the entire archive back through analysis. This matters because many of my conversations are long, layered thinking sessions: creative explorations, project development, research, problem-solving, or extended reflection. Without an inventory, the depth inside those individual conversations and thinking processes becomes difficult to retrieve later. The workflow makes long-form analysis and creative thought processes findable and reusable without flattening them into a few generic summaries. On top of the inventory, I use lightweight “blubscans” (analysis to improve retrieval): small, human-readable summaries that capture what mattered during a day or period without replacing the original conversations. They act as a navigational layer between thousands of raw messages and the things I may want to find, understand, revisit, or continue later. The important principle is that compression never becomes deletion. The raw conversations remain the source of truth, the inventory provides structure, and the scans provide context and tone. The result is more than a backup system. It becomes working creative memory: something I can preserve, search, revisit, connect across time, and reuse for projects, research, writing, pattern-finding, and future creative work. In simple terms, the structure is: raw exports → offline incremental inventory → blubscans/context layer → retrieval and reuse for later projects and creative work That way, the archive stays deep without becoming heavy, and useful without constantly reprocessing everything that was already understood. Step-by-step: 1. I collect large ChatGPT conversation exports as the raw source material for the archive. 2. I build and maintain an offline inventory of the conversations that have been indexed. 3. With each new export, I compare the conversations against the existing archive. 4. I process only newly added conversations and conversations that have been revisited, extended, or otherwise changed. 5. I update the inventory with the results while leaving stable conversations untouched. 6. I create lightweight “blubscans” with small, human-readable summaries of what mattered during a day or period. 7. I use the raw conversations as the source of truth, the inventory for structure, and the scans for context and tone. 8. I retrieve and reuse the archive for projects, research, writing, pattern-finding, and future creative work.

I built an AI workflow to automate guest-posting outreach. I use Claude to analyze target website requirements, draft personalized pitch emails for editors, and optimize my responses so I can pursue high-quality backlinks more efficiently. Step-by-step: 1. I provide Claude with the requirements for each target website. 2. I use Claude to analyze those requirements and identify what to address in the outreach. 3. I ask Claude to draft a personalized pitch email for the editor. 4. I use Claude to optimize my responses during the outreach process.

Instead of relying on a single AI chat, I structure the work as an executive team of specialist perspectives. I define the problem, assign roles such as CTO, product leader, economist, marketer, and skeptic, and have each expert analyze it independently. Then I run several rounds of critique so they can challenge one another’s assumptions before synthesizing their areas of agreement and disagreement. The process ends with a recommendation that includes the rationale and any remaining uncertainties. Step-by-step: 1. Define the problem clearly. 2. Assign specialist roles, such as CTO, product leader, economist, marketer, and skeptic. 3. Have each expert analyze the problem independently. 4. Run several rounds of critique in which the experts challenge one another’s assumptions. 5. Synthesize the areas of agreement and disagreement. 6. Produce a final recommendation with its rationale and remaining uncertainties.