> ## 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.

# discover work worth automating

> Find one repeated workflow, measure its friction, and turn real activity into a reviewable automation candidate.

{/* https://screenpi.pe */}

workflow discovery is useful for consultants, operators, and small teams who know work feels repetitive but cannot yet describe what should be automated. use screenpipe to observe a few real repetitions, then choose one narrow improvement.

## the output

a useful discovery report names:

* the trigger and desired result
* the systems and handoffs involved
* the repeated steps and decisions
* frequency and approximate active time
* errors, waiting, copying, and rework
* one candidate improvement with a human owner
* evidence gaps that need another observation

```mermaid theme={null}
flowchart TD
    A["observe 2–3 real runs"] --> B["find repeated steps"]
    B --> C["measure friction and exceptions"]
    C --> D["rank candidates"]
    D --> E["choose one small change"]
    E --> F["test against an accepted result"]
```

## step by step

<Steps>
  <Step title="pick one outcome">
    Use a concrete boundary such as “turn a support request into a resolved ticket” or “prepare the weekly client report.” avoid broad goals such as “analyze the company.”
  </Step>

  <Step title="set the observation policy">
    Tell participants what is recorded, why, who can review it, how long it is retained, and how to pause or exclude sensitive apps. do not use this workflow for covert employee monitoring.
  </Step>

  <Step title="capture two or three repetitions">
    Record enough examples to see normal variation. note the approximate start and end of each run so the search windows stay bounded.
  </Step>

  <Step title="run Automate My Work or a manual pipe">
    Use **Automate My Work** on Home. for a reusable version, open **Pipes → My Pipes → create your own pipe** and describe the bounded discovery report below. if it reports no matching data, fix capture or widen the range; do not fill gaps with assumptions.
  </Step>

  <Step title="review the candidate list">
    Remove one-off tasks and anything that depends on judgment the data does not expose. rank the rest by frequency, active time, failure cost, and ease of testing.
  </Step>

  <Step title="write the current process">
    Turn the best candidate into a draft SOP before automating it. include triggers, steps, decisions, exceptions, inputs, and the accepted result.
  </Step>

  <Step title="test one improvement">
    Automate a single stable step or add a checklist. compare the result with the original process before expanding the scope.
  </Step>
</Steps>

## build a reusable discovery pipe

paste this into **Pipes → My Pipes → create your own pipe**:

```text theme={null}
Create a manual workflow-discovery pipe for one named outcome.
Review a bounded time window and write a local Markdown report.
List only workflows repeated in the supplied data.
For each candidate include trigger, result, observed steps, repetitions,
friction, exceptions, evidence time ranges, and one reversible improvement.
Use /activity-summary for time totals. Do not score employee productivity,
send messages, or change another system.
```

after the app builds it, return to **My Pipes**, run it manually, and inspect both the report and execution log before scheduling it.

## prompt for a discovery pass

```markdown theme={null}
Analyze these bounded screenpipe results for repeated workflows.

For each candidate, provide:
- trigger and intended result
- observed steps and apps
- number of observed repetitions
- approximate active time, using activity-summary values only
- friction, rework, handoffs, and exceptions
- evidence moments or time ranges
- a small improvement to test
- missing evidence

Rank only workflows directly supported by the data.
If evidence is insufficient, say so.
Do not score employee productivity.
```

## choose a candidate

| good first candidate              | poor first candidate                                    |
| --------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
| repeated at least a few times     | happened once                                           |
| clear trigger and accepted result | success is subjective or political                      |
| mostly stable steps               | exceptions dominate the process                         |
| easy to verify                    | failure would create financial, legal, or customer harm |
| reversible change                 | irreversible external action                            |

<Tip>
  once you understand the current process, use [SOP capture](/team-sop-capture) to make the operating guide precise.
</Tip>