Workflow Analysis & Artifact Suggestions
Help users identify WHAT Claude Code artifacts to build based on their workflows, pain points, and work patterns.
Objective
Analyze the user's development workflow to:
- Identify repetitive tasks and pain points
- Recognize technology patterns (PDFs, APIs, testing, git, etc.)
- Suggest 2-4 specific artifacts that would provide the most value
- Prioritize suggestions by impact and ease of implementation
- Provide clear next steps for creation
Usage
With domain focus:
/suggest-artifacts testing
/suggest-artifacts pdf-processing
/suggest-artifacts git
General workflow analysis:
/suggest-artifacts
Analysis Methodology
Step 0: Documentation Verification (2-3 min)
Before analyzing workflows, verify current artifact specifications:
Use the claude-researcher skill to check the latest official documentation:
Query: "What are the current specifications and capabilities for Skills, Commands, Subagents, and Hooks from the official Claude Code documentation? Include when to use each artifact type."
Verify:
- Current artifact type definitions and purposes
- When to use each artifact type (decision framework)
- Available features and capabilities for each type
- Recent additions or changes to artifact types
- Best practices for artifact selection
Alignment check: Ensure suggestions will be based on the most current artifact capabilities and patterns from code.claude.com.
If specifications have changed significantly, adjust the suggestion patterns accordingly.
Step 1: Workflow Discovery
If the user provided a domain argument (e.g., /suggest-artifacts testing):
- Focus analysis on that specific domain
- Ask targeted questions about their workflow in that area
- Identify specific pain points and opportunities
If no argument provided:
- Ask about their daily development tasks
- Identify file types and technologies they work with
- Discover repetitive manual processes
- Spot collaboration and team workflow needs
Discovery Questions:
- What tasks do you do repeatedly?
- What file types or technologies do you work with most?
- What manual processes slow you down?
- What do you wish was automated?
- What tools or workflows does your team use?
Step 2: Pattern Recognition
Map workflow descriptions to artifact patterns:
Technology Patterns:
- PDFs → PDF processing Skill (extract, merge, convert)
- APIs → API testing Skill or testing Command
- Databases → SQL optimization Skill or query Command
- Testing → Test runner Command or pre-commit Hook
- Git → Git workflow Commands or commit Hooks
- Deployment → Deployment Commands (explicit control)
- Code Review → Review Subagent (isolated analysis)
- Logs → Log analysis Skill (pattern detection)
- Data → Data analysis Subagent (complex processing)
- Documentation → Doc generation Command
Pain Point Patterns:
- "I forget to..." → Hook (automatic enforcement)
- "I do this every day..." → Command (standardized workflow)
- "I need help with..." → Skill (automatic guidance)
- "This takes too long..." → Subagent (delegated processing)
- "I need to analyze..." → Skill or Subagent (reasoning required)
- "Team needs consistency..." → Command (shared process)
Step 3: Artifact Suggestion
For each identified opportunity, suggest a specific artifact with:
- Artifact Name & Type (e.g., "PDF Processor Skill")
- Impact Level (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW)
- What It Does (clear capability description)
- Example Usage (how it would be used)
- Benefits (time saved, consistency, etc.)
Prioritization Criteria:
- HIGH Impact: Addresses frequent, time-consuming tasks
- MEDIUM Impact: Improves occasional workflows or team consistency
- LOW Impact: Nice-to-have conveniences
Step 4: Recommendation Format
Present suggestions in this format:
Based on your workflow, here are artifacts that could help:
## 1. [Artifact Name] (HIGH IMPACT)
**Type:** Skill/Command/Subagent/Hook
**What it does:** [Clear description]
**Example usage:** [Concrete example]
**Benefits:** [Value proposition]
## 2. [Artifact Name] (MEDIUM IMPACT)
[Same structure]
## 3. [Artifact Name] (LOW IMPACT)
[Same structure]
---
**Recommendation:** Start with #1 as it will provide the most immediate value.
Would you like help creating [#1]?
Step 5: Handoff to Creation
After presenting suggestions:
- If user wants to proceed → hand off to artifact-advisor (confirms type)
- If user wants more options → iterate on suggestions
- If user wants examples → provide detailed use cases
- If unclear on choice → help user decide between options
Common Workflow Scenarios
Scenario 1: PDF Work
User context: "I work with PDF invoices and reports"
Suggestions:
- PDF Processor Skill (HIGH) - Automatic extraction and conversion
- PDF Form Filler Command (MEDIUM) - Batch form processing
- PDF Validation Hook (LOW) - Pre-commit PDF checks
Scenario 2: API Development
User context: "I'm building and testing REST APIs"
Suggestions:
- API Testing Skill (HIGH) - Automatic endpoint testing
- OpenAPI Validator Command (MEDIUM) - Spec validation
- API Doc Generator Command (MEDIUM) - Auto-generate documentation
Scenario 3: Testing Workflows
User context: "I need better testing automation"
Suggestions:
- Pre-Commit Test Hook (HIGH) - Automatic test runs before commits
- Test Runner Command (MEDIUM) - Flexible test execution
- Test Generator Subagent (MEDIUM) - Comprehensive test suite creation
Scenario 4: Git Workflows
User context: "I want to improve our git process"
Suggestions:
- Commit Message Helper Skill (HIGH) - Automatic commit message guidance
- Branch Creation Command (MEDIUM) - Standardized branching
- PR Creation Command (MEDIUM) - Consistent PR structure
- Pre-Commit Lint Hook (MEDIUM) - Enforce code quality
Scenario 5: Code Review
User context: "I need thorough code reviews"
Suggestions:
- Code Review Subagent (HIGH) - Detailed isolated analysis
- PR Review Command (MEDIUM) - Quick review workflow
- Security Scanner Hook (HIGH) - Automatic vulnerability checks
Scenario 6: Deployment
User context: "I deploy to multiple environments"
Suggestions:
- Deployment Command (HIGH) - Explicit, safe deployment workflow
- Pre-Deploy Validation Hook (MEDIUM) - Verify before deployment
- Environment Config Skill (LOW) - Help manage configs
Scenario 7: Database Work
User context: "I write SQL queries frequently"
Suggestions:
- SQL Optimization Skill (HIGH) - Query analysis and improvement
- Migration Generator Command (MEDIUM) - Create migration files
- Schema Validator Command (MEDIUM) - Check schema consistency
Scenario 8: Log Analysis
User context: "I debug issues by analyzing logs"
Suggestions:
- Log Analyzer Skill (HIGH) - Pattern detection and error finding
- Log Filter Command (MEDIUM) - Extract relevant entries
- Alert Generator Subagent (LOW) - Analyze and create alerts
Technology-to-Artifact Quick Reference
| Technology/Task | Primary Suggestion | Secondary Options |
|---|
| PDFs | PDF Processor Skill | Form Filler Command, Validation Hook |
| APIs | API Testing Skill | Test Command, Doc Generator |
| Testing | Pre-Commit Hook | Test Runner Command, Test Generator Subagent |
| Git | Commit Helper Skill | Branch/PR Commands, Lint Hook |
| Code Review | Review Subagent | Review Command, Security Hook |
| Deployment | Deployment Command | Validation Hook, Config Skill |
| SQL/Databases | SQL Optimization Skill | Migration Command, Schema Validator |
| Logs | Log Analyzer Skill | Filter Command, Alert Subagent |
| Data Analysis | Analysis Subagent | Visualization Command, Stats Skill |
| Documentation | Doc Generator Command | Doc Validator Hook, Style Skill |
Decision Framework Integration
After suggesting artifacts, if the user wants to proceed:
- Confirm artifact type with artifact-advisor Skill
- Create the artifact with appropriate builder (skill-builder, etc.)
- Validate quality with artifact-validator Skill
Example flow:
User: /suggest-artifacts
→ suggest-artifacts analyzes and suggests "PDF Processor Skill"
→ User: "Let's build it"
→ artifact-advisor confirms "Skill is correct type because..."
→ skill-builder guides creation step-by-step
→ artifact-validator checks quality
Edge Cases
When No Clear Artifact Needed
If the user's workflow is already well-served:
Based on your workflow, Claude's built-in capabilities may already cover your needs:
- [Capability 1] - Use Read tool directly
- [Capability 2] - Use Bash tool for this
However, you might still benefit from:
- [Optional artifact suggestion with justification]
Is there a specific pain point you'd like to address?
When Multiple Artifacts Needed
Some workflows benefit from multiple complementary artifacts:
Your workflow would benefit from a combination:
1. [Artifact 1] - For [specific need]
2. [Artifact 2] - For [different need]
3. [Artifact 3] - For [another need]
These work together: [explain how they complement each other]
Recommended implementation order:
1. Start with [Artifact 1] (highest impact)
2. Add [Artifact 2] once #1 is working
3. Consider [Artifact 3] for polish
When Domain is Ambiguous
If the provided domain argument is unclear:
I'm not sure what you mean by "[domain]". Could you clarify:
- Are you referring to [interpretation 1]?
- Or do you mean [interpretation 2]?
- Or something else: [alternative]?
This will help me suggest the most relevant artifacts.
Best Practices
- Listen First - Understand the workflow before suggesting
- Be Specific - Suggest concrete artifacts with clear names
- Prioritize by Impact - Focus on high-value opportunities
- Provide Examples - Show how artifacts would be used
- Limit Suggestions - 2-4 artifacts max to avoid overwhelm
- Explain Benefits - Make value proposition clear
- Facilitate Handoff - Smoothly transition to creation process
- Consider Alternatives - Explain why some approaches don't fit
- Validate Understanding - Confirm workflow understanding
- Encourage Iteration - Users can come back for more suggestions
Anti-Patterns to Avoid
❌ Don't suggest artifacts for every minor task
- Main conversation can handle simple requests
- Only suggest when there's clear repeated value
❌ Don't overwhelm with options
- Limit to 2-4 suggestions, prioritized
- Focus on highest impact opportunities
❌ Don't assume without asking
- Always validate understanding of workflow
- Ask clarifying questions when needed
❌ Don't suggest wrong artifact types
- Use decision framework to recommend correct type
- Explain why each type fits (or doesn't)
❌ Don't end without action
- Always provide clear next steps
- Offer to help with creation
Success Criteria
A successful consultation results in:
- ✅ User understands what artifacts would help their workflow
- ✅ User has 2-4 prioritized, concrete suggestions
- ✅ User knows the benefits and example usage
- ✅ User has clear next steps to create artifacts
- ✅ User feels confident in the recommendations
Integration with Ouroboros Plugin:
This command is part of the Ouroboros plugin and works alongside:
- artifact-advisor - Confirms artifact type choice
- skill-builder - Guides Skill creation
- artifact-validator - Validates quality
- claude-expert - Provides specifications
- claude-researcher - Fetches official docs