Find recurring work worth automating
Review a permitted slice of recent work activity and propose specific repetitive tasks that could become small, testable automations.
How this works
Review a permitted slice of recent work activity and propose specific repetitive tasks that could become small, testable automations.
Identify repeated units of work from an authorized activity sample, then propose narrow pilots with concrete inputs and checks. Frequent messages do not prove wasted effort, and the goal is process design rather than ranking employees.
Before you start
Defined operating scope
A person has recurring manual tasks visible in their authorized work history.
Required source material
Obtain Authorized recent work messages and documents; Current responsibilities; Quality and effort constraints. If connectors are unavailable, use authorized files with the same fields.
Decision and exception rules
Repetition reflects unresolved one-off work. Treat it as a process problem, not evidence of a recurring automation opportunity.
Prepare the inputs
- activity_window
- Required
Selected messages and documents
Record coverage limits and date range.
- responsibilities
- Required
Current role and recurring obligations
Use the owner’s description rather than inferred job scope.
- constraints
- Required
Quality, effort, access and cost limits
Identify actions that require a human decision.
- candidate_rules
- Required
Definition of a repeatable work unit
Separate repeated wording from repeated execution.
Implementation, step by step
Establish the working record
- Confirm the selected records, effective versions and responsible owner.
- Check activity_window, responsibilities, constraints, candidate_rules before beginning. Record the source version and the selected scope; an unavailable value stays unknown rather than becoming an inferred fact.
Checkpoint: The input record identifies the selected activity_window and any missing required fields.
Review the selected activity window
- Review the bounded activity sample and identify actual actions, artifacts and handoffs.
- Trace each candidate to distinct observed work instances and a defined deliverable.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Review the selected activity window.
Identify repeated manual actions and the data they require
- Group repeated work by trigger, inputs and output, recording examples and missing frequency evidence.
- Check feasibility against actual inputs, available tools and the owner’s quality constraints.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Identify repeated manual actions and the data they require.
Suggest narrowly scoped automations with quality checks
- Propose small automations with required data, available tools, a review point and a measurable pilot outcome.
- Trace each candidate to distinct observed work instances and a defined deliverable.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Suggest narrowly scoped automations with quality checks.
Choose one candidate and validate it before expanding
- Select one feasible candidate with the owner and test it on representative past work before broader rollout.
- Check feasibility against actual inputs, available tools and the owner’s quality constraints.
Checkpoint: A saved intermediate result for: Choose one candidate and validate it before expanding.
Package the result and unresolved work
- Do not infer employee performance from activity logs. Proposed automations still need access, cost, and quality validation.
- Do not infer individual performance from activity volume or response timing.
Checkpoint: A reviewable automation-opportunity shortlist. Unresolved items remain visible in the review record.
Decisions along the way
Repetition reflects unresolved one-off work.
Treat it as a process problem, not evidence of a recurring automation opportunity.
Required data is inaccessible.
Record the access gap and propose a permitted manual-input pilot if useful.
The candidate lacks a checkable output.
Narrow the task until a reviewer can distinguish correct from incorrect results.
What you will produce
work-history-to-automation-opportunities-result.json
JSONA reviewable automation-opportunity shortlist. Label proposed and completed states separately.
Include: candidate · observed_instances · trigger · required_inputs · proposed_output · human_check · access_gaps · status · evidence_reference · review_note
work-history-to-automation-opportunities-review.md
MarkdownKeep the evidence and unresolved decisions needed to apply this result, including exceptions involving candidate_rules.
Include: source_reference · question · owner · next_action
Check the result
- Trace each candidate to distinct observed work instances and a defined deliverable.
- Check feasibility against actual inputs, available tools and the owner’s quality constraints.
- Inspect activity_window and responsibilities in both the original and output; confirm that record identity and interpretation survived the transformation.
- Do not infer employee performance from activity logs. Proposed automations still need access, cost, and quality validation.
When something goes wrong
Repetition reflects unresolved one-off work.
Treat it as a process problem, not evidence of a recurring automation opportunity. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
Required data is inaccessible.
Record the access gap and propose a permitted manual-input pilot if useful. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
The candidate lacks a checkable output.
Narrow the task until a reviewer can distinguish correct from incorrect results. Retain the affected evidence and recovery status.
A worked example
SYNTHETIC EXAMPLE · NOT A REPORTED BUSINESS RESULT
Request
Find recurring work worth automating for the following bounded example; prepare the result for review.
Inputs
Synthetic example: One week contains four requests to copy approved invoice fields into the same register, plus six messages discussing one unusual dispute.
Expected result
Synthetic expected result: Shortlist invoice-field intake with four examples and a validation step. Do not count the six dispute messages as six repeatable tasks.
Run a small pilot
Start small
Trial a representative batch containing the ordinary case and the exception demonstrated above.
Record the baseline
Record current preparation time, review effort and correction types for the same records.
Agree success criteria
Agree acceptable review and error limits; measure feasible opportunities accepted; pilot effort and error rate for the chosen task.
Stop or revise
The candidate lacks a checkable output. Pause affected records and apply this recovery: Narrow the task until a reviewer can distinguish correct from incorrect results.
Keep the scope clear
- Do not infer individual performance from activity volume or response timing.
- Recommendations are proposed pilots, not measured savings or permission to connect new systems.
Check before using
Do not infer employee performance from activity logs. Proposed automations still need access, cost, and quality validation.
Business activities
- Operate and improve AI workflows
FROM A RECIPE TO YOUR WORKFLOW
Bring the company context together.
This workflow needs reliable inputs before it needs a better prompt. Moat8 Vault brings working information into a readable archive for the AI tools you use.
For this recipe: Authorized recent work messages and documents · Current responsibilities · Quality and effort constraints
Start with one recurring task, agree which sources to use, and review the first result with your team.
Discuss this workflow