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

The workflow starts when a project grows beyond one conversation and approved decisions, file versions, or next steps become difficult to track. I begin by creating one active authority document. It is not a transcript of every discussion; it contains only the rules, definitions, methods, and structural decisions that currently control the project. Next, I label project files by status: active, working, superseded, or archived. I also state clearly which file is authoritative instead of expecting the AI to infer it from the filenames. As decisions are approved, I record them in the authority document or a change log. I include what was decided, why it was decided, what it affects, and whether it needs later review. This keeps the chat from becoming the only project record. For large deliverables, I divide the work into named stages. A spreadsheet project might move through architecture, data migration, calculations, validation, and publication. Each stage produces a separate file and has a clear completion check. When a conversation gets too long, I create a handoff prompt for the next chat. It includes: - the project goal; - the active authority files; - completed work; - approved decisions; - unresolved issues; - the next specific deliverable; - anything that should not be redesigned. I start the new conversation with that prompt and only the files needed for the next stage. Finally, I validate the output outside the chat. For Excel files, that means opening them in desktop Excel, checking formulas and errors, saving them, closing them, and reopening them. An AI-generated file is not finished until it passes that check. The core pattern is to record the authority, label the versions, log decisions, work in stages, create a clear handoff, and validate the result. Step-by-step: 1. I create one active authority document containing the project’s current rules, definitions, methods, and structural decisions. 2. I label each project file as active, working, superseded, or archived, and identify the authoritative file. 3. I record approved decisions in the authority document or a change log, including the decision, rationale, effects, and any need for later review. 4. I divide large deliverables into named stages, with a separate file and clear completion check for each stage. 5. I create a handoff prompt when a conversation becomes too long, covering the project goal, authority files, completed work, approved decisions, unresolved issues, next deliverable, and anything that should not be redesigned. 6. I begin the next conversation with the handoff prompt and only the files needed for that stage. 7. I validate the final output outside the chat—for Excel files, by opening them in desktop Excel, checking formulas and errors, saving, closing, and reopening them.

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 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 turned tedious Google Business Profile spammer tracking into a Claude Skill. It organizes the research and puts all findings into an XLS file that can be submitted through the Google Business Redressal form and the GBP forum for escalation by a Google Product Expert for Google review. Step-by-step: 1. I created a list of suspected spam profiles with each business name and Google Maps URL. 2. I asked Claude to examine each profile, determine its website, and identify any relationships between the domains. 3. I asked Claude to identify other businesses operating at the listed addresses. 4. I asked Claude to determine whether each profile is listed with the country’s primary Google data provider or providers. 5. I asked Claude to determine whether each profile is listed in a state or government registry. 6. I asked Claude to analyze commonalities across the profiles’ reviews, descriptions, and photos. 7. I asked Claude to identify patterns indicating whether the profiles are fake or real and whether they are related in some way. 8. I had Claude compile all findings into an XLS file for submission through the Google Business Redressal form and the GBP forum.

I recently built a month-end close workflow in Awish for a client at a finance company. The problem was not creating the final report. The real bottleneck was collecting data from different systems, checking what was missing, reconciling totals, chasing exceptions, and getting the report to the right people. I built the entire process in Awish by describing what I wanted. Step-by-step: 1. I opened the Awish chat and wrote: “At every month-end close, collect journal entries, invoices, vendor bills, and financial records from NetSuite together with reporting workbooks from Excel and SharePoint. Check submission completeness, reconcile totals across sources, identify missing data or unusual variances, prepare the management-reporting workbook, send unresolved exceptions to Finance in Microsoft Teams for approval, and once approved export the final report to PDF, store it in SharePoint, and distribute it through Outlook.” 2. Awish understood the request, planned the workflow, and selected NetSuite, Excel, SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and Outlook for the required steps. 3. I reviewed the plan, connected the client’s accounts, and approved the automation. 4. At month-end, Awish pulls the required financial data and reporting files, checks whether anything is missing, reconciles totals, and flags unusual variances. 5. It updates the management-reporting workbook and sends only the unresolved exceptions to the Finance team in Microsoft Teams. 6. Once Finance approves the exceptions, Awish finalizes the report, exports it to PDF, stores it in SharePoint, and sends it to the authorized recipients through Outlook. The useful part is that Finance no longer has to spend most of the close manually collecting and checking information before making a decision. The repetitive reconciliation work is handled automatically, while the team retains control over unexplained exceptions and the final report. Trigger → Analyze → Approval → Action Month-end close → Reconciliation \u0026 variance checks → Finance approval → Final report \u0026 distribution

Claude Cowork has been a huge help in creating growth forecasts for our paid media channels. I just plug in our metrics, tell it what goal I'm trying to achieve, and it's able to create an Excel sheet for me with exactly what I need. This saves me a bunch of time because I can create multiple scenarios just by chatting with Cowork. Step-by-step: 1. I gathered the paid-media metrics and the business goal the forecast needed to model. 2. I gave the inputs to Claude Cowork and asked it to build the forecast directly in Excel. 3. I reviewed the structure, assumptions, and outputs of the generated sheet. 4. I changed the assumptions conversationally to create additional scenarios. 5. I compared the scenarios without rebuilding the spreadsheet model by hand each time.

I run a small healthcare clinic and needed a monthly performance scoreboard that combined data from three separate sources: Google Analytics (GA4), my booking or appointment system, and a cashflow spreadsheet. Pulling everything manually each month took more than an hour and was prone to errors. I automated the pipeline using Claude-in-Chrome shortcuts and Claude’s analysis capabilities, reducing the process to around 10 minutes of hands-on time. Service businesses often have performance data scattered across a website analytics platform, a booking or practice management system, and a finance tool. Creating a coherent monthly view requires exporting data from each source, cross-referencing it, and manually calculating derived metrics such as rebook rate and conversion rate. This workflow automates data collection and analysis in one step. Step-by-step: 1. I set up two scheduled Claude-in-Chrome shortcuts to run automatically on the 1st of each month. One exports the GA4 Traffic Acquisition CSV, and the other exports the GA4 Pages and Screens CSV. Both save directly to a designated Google Drive folder. 2. On the 1st, I manually trigger a third Claude-in-Chrome shortcut. It logs into my booking system, navigates to the appointments export, and downloads the month’s appointment data. I keep this step manual because most booking systems log users out between sessions. 3. I open my cashflow spreadsheet and note the month’s revenue and profit figures. This takes about 30 seconds to do manually. 4. I open a Claude session and upload all four files together: the two GA4 exports, the appointment data, and the cashflow figures. 5. I prompt Claude to calculate the key metrics: total appointments, new patients, utilisation rate, rebook rate, average spend, online bookings, and website-to-booking conversion rate. The rebook rate is calculated from the appointment data as patients with a future booking divided by total patients seen. 6. Claude produces a formatted monthly scoreboard, flags anything that looks anomalous, and compares the results with the prior-month baseline when I include last month’s scoreboard in the upload. 7. Optionally, I ask Claude to produce individual practitioner breakdowns from the same appointment data, splitting the metrics by staff member for use in one-on-one reviews. The result is a complete, accurate monthly clinic scoreboard in around 10 minutes, with no manual calculations. The rebook rate computation alone, which previously required cross-referencing two separate reports, now takes seconds. The same workflow can adapt to any service business using a booking or practice management system that allows CSV exports. Tools used: Claude (Sonnet 5), Claude-in-Chrome extension, Google Analytics GA4, Google Drive, any booking or appointment system with CSV export capability, and Google Sheets or Excel for cashflow figures.

I own a rental property where a water leak has occurred roughly every year or two. The leak typically runs for weeks before the water utility detects usage above its threshold. Because billing cycles last three months, the utility may notify me weeks or months after the problem begins. By then, the leak can have produced a bill more than $1,000 higher than the usual $100–$300 amount. The utility offers a one-time, per-account waiver for accidental leak overages. After using that waiver the first time, later incidents are entirely out of pocket. The utility also cannot notify me sooner than when usage exceeds 25,000 gallons during a billing cycle, which moves the account into a quadruple-rate tier for the rest of that cycle. I repeatedly asked whether they could provide an immediate alert when a user-set or company-set daily usage threshold was exceeded, but they said they had no system or solution for it. I tried checking my usage manually every day, but after weeks or months of normal readings, it was easy to become complacent or forget. After receiving another $1,300-plus bill, I asked ChatGPT whether I could automate the process of logging into my utility account, checking usage daily, and emailing me about the prior day’s usage or an overage. ChatGPT suggested several options, including paid AI-agent tools and a free script running on my own hardware. I wanted a completely free, cloud-based solution that would not require my computer to stay on, so I compared the paid options, including Google Spark, with a GitHub-based system. GitHub apparently includes 2,000 minutes of script runtime per month, while my system was estimated to use about 100 minutes. I spent part of a day asking ChatGPT questions, copy-pasting code into GitHub, and refining it. I now have a cloud-based system that logs into my water utility account, checks daily usage, emails me when my daily or seven-day-average thresholds are exceeded, and adds each day’s usage to an Excel spreadsheet for ongoing history. I have verified that it works, and it is set up to keep running and sending alerts without ongoing cost. I had never coded before. The system uses Python, GitHub Actions/YAML, Playwright, pandas, openpyxl, Excel, and Gmail for email alerts. Excel and Gmail were the only tools in that list I had used previously. If I want to change an alert threshold or another setting, I can log into GitHub and ask ChatGPT for the relevant code adjustment. I also added a second rental property in the same city that uses the same water utility. Replicating the process for that property required only a small amount of additional code and took almost no time. I now have a perpetually self-updating, cloud-based water-usage database with daily email alerts for both rental properties, at zero ongoing cost.