> ## Documentation Index
> Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.screenpipe.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

# Choose which observed workflow to automate first

> Prioritize a repeated, well-understood task with a clear success check.

Prioritize a repeated, well-understood task with a clear success check. Estimate value using observed frequency and reviewed time measurements, then subtract setup, review, and maintenance effort. A suggested automation is a hypothesis until tested.

## Start here

Collect two or more approved examples of a candidate workflow when possible. Record its trigger, frequency, active effort, error consequences, variability, and available APIs or tools.

## Copy this prompt

Use this in Screenpipe chat or an assistant with the required connections. Replace the brackets with your details. If the assistant lacks access, provide a reviewed excerpt; a prompt alone does not connect it to your history.

```text theme={null}
Compare these candidate workflows: [list and approved evidence].
For each, report frequency, reviewed active effort, variation, input quality,
reversibility, success check, setup effort, human review, and maintenance.
Label estimates and unknowns. Recommend one small experiment.
Do not infer time savings from screen-frame counts or promise ROI.
Keep observed behavior separate from proposed implementation.
```

## Check the result

Test the selected step and measure actual review effort and error rate. Recalculate the estimate with observed results. Stop or revise when correction work exceeds the benefit.

<AccordionGroup>
  <Accordion title="See a worked example" id="worked-example">
    A fictional task performed 20 times per week at 6 minutes each has a 120-minute manual baseline. If a tested draft takes 2 minutes of human review per run, the potential gross reduction is 80 minutes per week. A 4-hour setup would take three such weeks to recover before maintenance and failures. These are illustrative inputs, not product performance claims.
  </Accordion>

  <Accordion title="Go deeper: setup choices and edge cases" id="details">
    Good early candidates have consistent inputs, a limited action scope, and an output a person can inspect. A draft checklist or classified queue can be easier to evaluate than a workflow that immediately modifies financial or customer records.

    Include exception frequency and recovery cost in the comparison. An automation that succeeds on the normal path but duplicates a submission during retries can cost more than it saves.
  </Accordion>
</AccordionGroup>

## Continue

[Workflow discovery](/workflow-discovery) · [automation validation](/automation-validation) · [enterprise pilot](/enterprise-pilot)