Workflow Hub

I built a quarterly “AI Audit” of my Claude history, adapted from The Rundown’s AI Audit prompt and turned into a repeating loop. Each quarter, Claude reads every conversation I’ve had and reports patterns I can’t see myself: where my stated priorities differ from where my attention actually goes, which decisions I keep reopening, and connections across work, money, travel, and personal life. It then rewrites its own instructions for working with me based on what it found. I request my Claude data export, and the run finds the export email in Gmail, downloads it through Claude in Chrome, and unzips it on my machine through the desktop app. I never touch a zip file. The conversations are condensed and split by month, and Sonnet subagents pull structured notes from each month. An Opus subagent combines the monthly notes into a quarterly report under strict evidence rules: every finding cites at least three conversations across at least two months, states the strongest counter-evidence, and labels each claim as OBSERVED or INFERRED. When the evidence is thin, it says “insufficient evidence” instead of padding. Claude writes and maintains a Google Doc with two tabs. Reports contains one report per quarter with footnoted citations. Progress compares the quarters and includes two sections I added to the original prompt: Stop / Start / Continue / Change, which generates concrete behavior changes for the next quarter, and a Cross-domain pass, which identifies patterns spanning work, money, body, and personal life that I would not connect on my own. I push back on findings I disagree with. Those corrections go into the doc and a versioned prompt, now v1.1, so the next run does not repeat the mistake. Claude then takes the latest audit and its stored memory about me and proposes rewritten project instructions. The first rewrite removed stale facts and added rules to check memory, docs, and connected apps before saying it does not have something; move long-running threads into a maintained doc because one tracking chat had grown to 434 messages; and name the number that would settle an open decision because the audit showed I close decisions once a number exists and keep circling the ones without one. On the first non-holiday weekday after each quarter closes, a scheduled task emails me to request the export while I am at my desk. Scheduled checks later that day pick up the export and run the whole pipeline from a written runbook. I backfilled Q1–Q3 2026 to start, and Q3 alone covered 151 conversations and 2,922 messages. Step-by-step: 1. I started from The Rundown’s AI Audit prompt. 2. I requested my Claude data export and automated the process of finding the export email in Gmail, downloading it through Claude in Chrome, and unzipping it through the desktop app on my machine. 3. I condensed the conversations, split them by month, and used Sonnet subagents to extract structured notes from each month. 4. I used an Opus subagent to synthesize the monthly notes into a quarterly report. Each finding must cite at least three conversations across at least two months, include the strongest counter-evidence, and be labeled OBSERVED or INFERRED. Thin evidence is reported as “insufficient evidence.” 5. I had Claude write the results to a Google Doc with Reports and Progress tabs, including footnoted quarterly reports, cross-quarter comparisons, Stop / Start / Continue / Change recommendations, and a Cross-domain pass. 6. I challenged findings I disagreed with and stored those corrections in the doc and in the versioned prompt, now v1.1. 7. I had Claude use the latest audit and its stored memory about me to rewrite its project instructions, including rules about checking connected sources, maintaining long-running threads in a doc, and naming the number that would settle an open decision. 8. I scheduled the export request for the first non-holiday weekday after each quarter closes, then used scheduled checks and a written runbook to run the pipeline. 9. I backfilled Q1–Q3 2026, with Q3 covering 151 conversations and 2,922 messages. 10. To build your own version, add the evidence rules and OBSERVED/INFERRED labels, split the work into inexpensive monthly extraction and one strong synthesis, write the output to a living doc instead of a chat, and make the final step “rewrite your instructions for me.” That turns the audit from a report into a feedback loop.

Clean up near-duplicate artwork photos with a visual checklist THE PROBLEM I had hundreds of photos of my handmade collages. Some showed the same work photographed at different times, from different angles or against different backgrounds. Others were cropped versions, detail shots or useful making-of photos. The duplicate finder in my image manager missed real matches and suggested unrelated collages instead. Simply keeping one file from each group would also have thrown away useful material. THE WORKFLOW 1. Export a working set and preserve the filenames. I exported the images from Eagle. Smaller copies made the collection easier to upload, while the original-resolution files stayed on my computer. Keeping the filenames intact made it possible to apply decisions to the originals later. 2. Ask AI to compare the artwork, not just the whole photograph. The comparison looked for matching local image details and their relative positions. This helped connect photos despite changes in angle and background. Candidate groups still needed review: two collages might contain the same clipping, and a detail photo might overlap with a wider shot without being redundant. 3. Turn the results into a visual decision page. The AI produced a standalone HTML file with photos grouped side by side and their original filenames underneath. I requested a “Keep” checkbox beneath each candidate and a category dropdown: “Collage” or “Making of”. Multiple images could stay in either category. One photo might show one part clearly while another preserved a different part better. I made the decisions; the AI did not choose a winner automatically. 4. Validate and export my choices. The page flagged any group with nothing selected and any selected photo without a category. Photos without a confirmed match were preserved separately. A download button exported my decisions as a small JSON file, which I sent back to the AI. 5. Generate a local cleanup script from that exact selection. The resulting Windows script checks the expected files, asks me to confirm the folder, sorts the retained photos into “collages”, “making of” and “loose items”, and sends rejected photos to the Recycle Bin. It targets the ordinary export folder, not Eagle’s internal library. The loose items can then be sorted manually before reimporting. WHAT THIS PRODUCED From 296 photos, the review grouped 204 into 90 candidate groups and left 92 without a confirmed match. My final choices retained 96 collage photos and 23 making-of photos, plus all 92 loose items: 211 retained, 85 designated for removal. The checklist and selection were completed, and the script was generated. At the time of writing, I had not yet run the cleanup on Windows. WHY IT HELPED The key was separating three jobs: finding likely matches, deciding what matters, and applying those decisions to files. “The same artwork” does not necessarily mean “an unnecessary photo”. A visual checklist let me make those distinctions without manually tracking filenames. STARTER PROMPT “I have photos of the same artwork taken from different angles and against different backgrounds. Find candidate matches using details within the artwork, and distinguish duplicates from details, changed versions and making-of photos. Create a standalone HTML review page with original filenames, a Keep checkbox and a category dropdown for each candidate. Allow multiple retained photos per category. Flag empty groups and selected photos with no category. Preserve unmatched images. Let me export my choices as JSON. After I return the selection, generate a script that validates the original filenames, sorts retained files into the chosen folders and moves only rejected files to the Recycle Bin after showing the target folder and counts. Do not choose or delete files on my behalf."

I turned vague fragrance preferences into a usable scent profile by combining perfume notes, dislikes, changing sensory perception, and real-world feedback. I started by telling AI which perfumes I already liked. Rather than immediately recommending more fragrances, it broke those perfumes down into their notes and broader families, such as floral, woody, musky, citrus, sweet, powdery, spicy, green, and amber. I used product information from a qualitative webshop I liked to support that analysis. I then added scents and individual notes I do not enjoy. That distinction matters because liking a perfume does not necessarily mean liking every ingredient in it. A note may work beautifully in one composition and become overwhelming in another. My perception of fragrance had also changed. After a long period of not smoking, many scents seemed to arrive more sharply than before. Perfumes I might once have experienced as soft or pleasant could now feel much more intense. The important part is that AI does not treat perfume notes as a fixed formula. Instead of assuming, “You like vanilla, therefore recommend vanilla perfumes,” it can learn something more nuanced: “You like vanilla when it is softened by certain notes, but dislike it when it is combined with others, and you currently experience certain sharp notes more strongly.” Price can become another layer rather than a separate search. Once a promising scent profile emerges, AI can look for fragrances with similar structures at different price points. The result is a personal scent map: not only a list of perfumes I like, but an evolving model of why certain combinations work for me. The best validation is eventually reaching the highly scientific fragrance classification: > “HALLELUJAH, HOW GOOD DOES THIS SMELL?!” 😂🌺 Step-by-step: 1. I listed perfumes I already enjoy. 2. I analyzed their notes, scent families, and recurring combinations, using product information from a qualitative webshop I liked. 3. I added notes and fragrance types I dislike on their own. 4. I described how perfumes actually feel when worn, using reactions such as sharp, soft, warm, clean, heavy, sweet, fresh, comforting, or overwhelming. 5. I used those reactions to refine my scent profile. 6. I generated new fragrance suggestions based on the emerging pattern. 7. When a perfume looked promising but was expensive, I asked for similar lower-cost alternatives. 8. I smelled or wore the suggested fragrances in real life. 9. I fed my reactions back into the model, including whether a scent was too sharp or sweet, became nicer after an hour, had an opening I loved but a dry-down I disliked, or was simply amazing. 10. I repeated the process until the recommendations became increasingly precise.

I use this workflow when I want fresh creative input for my visual work and want to expand my inspiration library in Eagle without collapsing into randomness. The starting point is not a generic prompt like “show me inspiring artists.” I give the AI examples of images, artists, materials, traditions, or visual details that already catch my attention. The AI first looks for patterns in what I respond to: color, material, composition, atmosphere, craft techniques, cultural traditions, natural structures, architectural forms, and more. From there, we branch outward. I explore adjacent references across disciplines, cultures, periods, and materials rather than looking only for visually similar work. I react freely to the suggestions: “This texture, yes.” “This artist, no.” “More of that construction method.” “Less decorative.” “Stranger.” “Older.” “Softer.” Those reactions steer the next round of research. One research session, for example, moved through Indian stepwells; Ajrakh and Bandhani textiles from Gujarat and Kutch; Tibetan/Ladakhi painted textiles; Miao baby carriers; Dong wooden bridges; art from Papua; Russian lubok prints; and even 11th-century goldworking in Panama. These references do not belong to one tidy category, period, or geography. That is precisely the point. The session was driven by visual responses and emerging connections involving color, surface, construction, ornament, repetition, symbolism, material, and technique. Each discovery created a new branch to follow. AI made it possible to move laterally across disciplines, cultures, and centuries without losing the thread of what was visually interesting to me. I then selected only the references that genuinely sparked something and added those to Eagle. The result is not just a collection of “similar images,” but a deliberately expanded visual vocabulary. The human remains the curator. AI expands the search radius; taste decides what enters the library. Sometimes there is no initial research question at all. A joke, misheard word, object, memory, or accidental phrase becomes the seed. The value is in allowing associative drift to continue long enough for a real curiosity trail to emerge. > The research does not always begin with a topic. Sometimes the topic is discovered during the wandering. Step-by-step: 1. I start with a few visual references I genuinely like. 2. I ask AI to identify recurring visual qualities and possible connections. 3. I explore adjacent references across disciplines, cultures, periods, and materials rather than searching only for visually similar work. 4. I react freely to the suggestions, noting what I want more or less of, such as a particular texture, artist, construction method, decorative quality, age, or atmosphere. 5. I let those reactions steer the next round of research. 6. I open the references and collect only the images that actually trigger something. 7. I save those images in Eagle as a curated visual library rather than an indiscriminate image dump. 8. I add useful context through folders, collections, tags, or notes so the references can resurface later.

I built Atlas to turn AI-assisted creative findings into readable project cards with source links, relationships, comments, and a calm HTML interface. Extracting creative findings is only half the job. Once fragments, metaphors, visual ideas, and research trails accumulate, I need somewhere to return to them and keep working. Atlas is that project layer over my old conversations. AI helps me revisit source material and suggests findings worth keeping. I decide what they mean, how to name them, where they belong, and which relationships matter. The results become readable cards. My harvesting system points to conversations that seem rich, and then I revisit them with AI. We identify existing projects, standalone findings, recurring material, and connections. Sometimes the review sparks new ideas. After just two rich conversations, we had 28 cards, including four collection cards and three new ideas. The harvest is the radar. The review is where interpretation happens. Atlas keeps the results usable. Step-by-step: 1. I let the harvest flag chats containing project ideas, unusual language, visual concepts, or unfinished thoughts. It suggests where to look without deciding what matters. 2. I review promising conversations with AI and ask, “What here deserves a place in the creative system?” AI suggests findings and connections, while I correct interpretations, separate unrelated material, and decide what belongs together. The card structure grows out of that dialogue. 3. I create readable cards with information such as a name, category, description, findings, sources, relationships, questions, and comments. The contents depend on the material: a story needs different information from an essay. The goal is to recognise and understand the work when I return. 4. I group recurring fragments into collection cards for language finds, story material, or visual motifs. Individual items stay visible without turning Atlas into hundreds of tiny, barely distinct cards. 5. I link each card back to the original conversations so I can access exact wording, context, and how an idea developed. Several conversations can feed one card, giving me a stable starting point while its source history grows. 6. I record meaningful relationships that I recognise, such as shared themes, predecessors, spin-offs, fictional worlds, or research overlaps. Similar words alone do not establish a meaningful relationship. Categories provide visual orientation, while relationships let me move across them. 7. When I remember a source but cannot find it yet, I leave a comment: “Find and link the old conversation about XYZ.” When it turns up, I attach it and update the comment: “Found it, now linked.” This turns imperfect memory into a useful breadcrumb, so missing sources do not have to stop the work. 8. I use a small green indicator to mark cards with updates I have not viewed yet, such as a new source, finding, relationship, or resolved comment. This shows me where something changed without requiring me to check every card. 9. I let cards stay unfinished. One paragraph, one source, and an open question can already make a useful card, and more context can accumulate later. Reviewing old material can also spark new work, making the archive generative through fresh interpretation. 10. I keep the HTML environment calm and make it feel like a reading room: Browse → recognise → open → read → follow a source or relationship. Code handles IDs, CSV rows, statuses, and consistency checks underneath while I work with readable cards. Each layer answers a different question: the harvest tells me where to look, the collaborative review tells me what is there and what it means, and Atlas keeps the result usable. AI helps me notice and organise, while I assign meaning. Atlas preserves the results with the original conversations available underneath. I can navigate backwards to the source and sideways to related work, starting wherever I am. The harvest tells me where to look, the review tells me what I found, and Atlas makes sure I can use it again.