workflow-automation-scout
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when reviewing repeated manual processes, team workflows, operational checklists, or task logs to identify automation candidates, required inputs, ROI, risks, and human approval points.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- agent-handoff-briefSkill
- api-doc-to-tool-specSkill
- architecture-rfc-reviewSkill
- bug-report-to-reproSkill
- changelog-to-upgrade-planSkill
- competitive-research-briefSkill
- customer-call-to-prdSkill
- database-migration-risk-reviewSkill
- dependency-upgrade-risk-reviewSkill
- incident-log-to-postmortemSkill
- messy-notes-to-decision-logSkill
- privacy-data-flow-mapSkill
- prompt-to-eval-rubricSkill
- repo-launch-readiness-reviewSkill
- roadmap-to-release-planSkill
- security-review-checklistSkill
- support-ticket-to-evalSkill
- telemetry-to-product-insightsSkill
- tool-permission-auditSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 14
Use when repeated manual work may be automated with clear inputs, outputs, safeguards, and review gates.
- Distinctive: line 15
Do not use when the process is mostly one-off strategy, negotiation, or human judgment.
- Distinctive: line 28
Add safeguards, approval gates, and fallback paths.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Workflow Automation Scout
Purpose
Find useful automation opportunities without automating unclear or risky judgment.
Fit
- Use when repeated manual work may be automated with clear inputs, outputs, safeguards, and review gates.
- Do not use when the process is mostly one-off strategy, negotiation, or human judgment.
Inputs
- Process notes, SOPs, task logs, checklists, or repeated manual work descriptions.
- Frequency, time cost, failure rate, and tools involved if available.
- Constraints around approvals, compliance, and user impact.
Workflow
- Break the workflow into repeatable steps and judgment-heavy steps.
- Estimate value using frequency, time saved, error reduction, and user impact.
- Identify required inputs, outputs, tools, and integration points.
- Add safeguards, approval gates, and fallback paths.
- Rank candidates by value, feasibility, and risk.
Output
Produce Markdown with:
- Workflow Snapshot
- Automation Candidates
- Value Estimate
- Required Integrations
- Human Approval Points
- Risks And Safeguards
- Recommended First Automation
Validation
- Automation candidates are tied to repeated work.
- Judgment-heavy steps keep human review.
- ROI is labeled approximate unless measured.
- External writes and customer-visible actions include gates.
- The first automation is small enough to pilot.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.