Maintain the folder workflow

Complete Choose upload, Project, Connector, Cowork, or MCP first.

Folder workflows drift when source files, output files, and review rules are not maintained. This lesson asks you to make a folder workflow maintenance checklist, not a broad promise that Claude can use files. The output should be specific enough that you can inspect what Claude read, what it produced, and what still needs review.

Here is the before and after: Before, the workflow works once and slowly collects old files. After, a short checklist reviews source scope, sensitive files, output location, naming, archived versions, and rule updates. For example, a client folder might include notes, drafts, exports, and old versions. The lesson output should say which files are in scope, which are out, what Claude is making, and how you will prove the result came from the right source.

Now try it: Ask Claude to create a monthly review checklist for the folder workflow. Make one choice before asking Claude to work: folder, file set, output shape, source check, access path, or maintenance rule. That choice keeps desktop file work from becoming vague local search.

The lesson is done when you can show the source boundary, the output, and the check that proves the output is safe to use.

Create a folder workflow maintenance checklist. Include source folder scope, sensitive files, stale files, output location, naming pattern, archived versions, review rule, owner, and when to rewrite the folder rule.

If any input is missing, ask me up to three questions before producing the artifact. Then return five sections: Finished Artifact, Realistic File Example, Assumptions To Check, What I Should Use In The Next Lesson, and One Risk If I Trust This Without Fixing It. Keep the answer practical enough that I can paste it into my folder workflow notes.

Finished Artifact:
- a folder workflow maintenance checklist
- Why it matters: it gives the folder workflow a concrete thing to inspect instead of a vague intention.
- Use it next: paste this artifact into the next lesson before asking Claude to write, build, import, publish, or review anything.

Reality Check:
- The artifact names the user, input, decision, owner, or proof it depends on.
- The weakest assumption is visible.
- The next step can be completed in one sitting.

What good looks like

• The checklist is short enough to use.
• Source and output folders are checked.
• Sensitive and stale files are reviewed.
• Rewrite triggers are included.

Without rereading the lesson, explain why a folder workflow maintenance checklist matters in three bullets. Then apply it to a second file example: [describe a different folder or document set]. Return What Changed, What Stayed The Same, What To Check Before Trusting The Output, and the exact next action.

Transfer Check:
- What changed: the second example has a different audience, input, or delivery context.
- What stayed the same: a folder workflow maintenance checklist still needs a source, a review check, and a next step.
- Before trusting it: inspect the source check that would catch a wrong assumption.
- Next action: run the check once, then carry the revised artifact into the next lesson.

What good looks like

• You explained the lesson idea from memory before applying it again.
• The second example changes the artifact instead of copying the first answer.
• The trust check names a real risk.
• The next action can be done in one sitting.