Workflow Fit Scorer

Workflow Fit Scorer

Takes a workflow description and scores it against the 5 automation-fit properties that determine whether building an agent is the right move. Returns a structured verdict with a property-by-property rationale and a recommended next step.

Trigger

Use when the user says "/workflow-fit-scorer", "should I automate this", "is this worth building an agent for", "can I automate this workflow", or when evaluating whether a repetitive task is a good automation candidate.

Phase 1: Intake

Ask the user to describe the workflow in their own words. If the description is under 2 sentences, prompt:

"Walk me through one real instance of this workflow from start to finish — what triggers it, what you touch along the way, and what done looks like."

Collect:

1. Workflow description — what happens, start to finish
2. Current frequency — how often does this run?
3. Current time cost — roughly how long does it take per run?
4. Who does it — one person, multiple people, or does it vary?

Phase 2: Score Against 5 Properties

Evaluate the workflow against each property. Score each: YES / PARTIAL / NO.

Property 1 — Repeats on a Schedule or Known Trigger

The workflow runs predictably: daily, weekly, on a calendar event, on an inbound message, etc. Ad-hoc workflows initiated by novel judgment calls score NO.

Property 2 — Recognizable Good vs Bad Output

You (or a team member) have done this by hand often enough that you can quickly tell a good output from a bad one. If output quality is entirely subjective or depends on factors that change every time, score NO.

Property 3 — Fits in a Single Paragraph

A clear person could describe the workflow completely in one paragraph without losing important detail. If it takes a page to specify, the workflow is too ambiguous for automation now.

Property 4 — Crosses 2 or More Tools

The workflow requires moving data or actions between at least 2 systems (email + CRM, calendar + Slack, spreadsheet + reporting tool, etc.). Single-tool tasks usually have native automation and don't need a custom agent.

Property 5 — Follows a Known Path

The steps are the same (or have predictable branches) every time. If the workflow requires judgment calls that differ substantially run to run, score NO.

Phase 3: Verdict

Scoring Logic

Switch-Tools Routing (when verdict is SWITCH TOOLS)

Phase 4: Output

WORKFLOW FIT SCORE
==================
Workflow: {one-line summary}

Property scores:
  1. Repeats on schedule/trigger:     {YES|PARTIAL|NO}
  2. Recognizable good vs bad output: {YES|PARTIAL|NO}
  3. Fits in a paragraph:             {YES|PARTIAL|NO}
  4. Crosses 2+ tools:                {YES|PARTIAL|NO}
  5. Follows a known path:            {YES|PARTIAL|NO}

Verdict: {BUILD | RESOLVE AMBIGUITY | SWITCH TOOLS}

Rationale: {2–3 sentences on the key properties that drove the verdict}

Next step:
  BUILD            → Run /build-spec-generator to produce a deployment-ready spec.
  RESOLVE AMBIGUITY → {name the specific property to fix and how}
  SWITCH TOOLS     → {name the right tool and why}

Time/effort estimate (if BUILD): {rough weekly hours saved × team size}

What This Does NOT Do

• Does not generate the build spec. Use /build-spec-generator after a BUILD verdict.
• Does not route to a specific AI model or provider. Use /failure-mode-tool-router or /model-router for that.
• Does not evaluate cost or ROI in depth. Use /agent-cost-model for budget-constrained decisions.
• Does not validate that the workflow stays in scope. Use /spec-gap-detector after the spec is written.

Source

Framework adapted from Nate Kadlac newsletter (2026-04-27): "Your team spends 5 hours a week on work a sales consultant automated in an afternoon." The 5 properties are Nate's framework; the scoring logic and switch-tools routing table are M2AI extensions.