AI Work Diary
The question 'was this done by AI?' is moving from awkward to contractual. Agencies that can point to a clear, honest record of what AI did and what humans decided have a defensible answer. The AI Work Diary keeps that record without turning every deliverable into a 20-minute documentation exercise.
What this skill does
The diary isn't busywork or insurance theatre. It serves three real purposes: protection against future contract or dispute scenarios where the AI question gets asked, internal data on where AI actually saves time versus generates rework, and a credible answer to clients who ask "how did you make this?" The format is deliberately fast — a 2-minute entry per deliverable, not a 20-minute essay. If it takes longer, the format is wrong and people will stop using it within a week.
The TRACE framework structures each entry. Task definition (the human strategic thinking that preceded AI involvement — who set the brief, what context shaped the approach), Raw AI contribution (what tool, what prompt, what was produced), Adjustments (what was added, removed, rewritten, what errors were caught), Checks (factual, brand, client-fit, peer review), End product assessment (an honest percentage estimate and a specific note on what value the human layer added). The percentage estimate is meant to be honest — over-claiming human contribution is exactly the thing that looks bad in a future dispute, so the skill flags entries where the maths doesn't add up.
A five-tier classification covers the realistic spectrum: Human-Created (no AI), AI-Informed (AI for research or ideation, deliverable fully human-written), AI-Assisted (AI generated initial draft, 50%+ revised by human), AI-Produced Human-Reviewed (AI generated most output, light editing under 50%), and AI-Automated (minimal human intervention — automated reports, transcriptions). The taxonomy matters because contracts and policies increasingly hinge on which tier the work falls into, and "we use AI sometimes" doesn't survive a procurement review.
A simplified team template keeps the format consistent across multiple operators, and the monthly aggregation view surfaces patterns the individual entries don't — where AI is genuinely saving hours, where rework eats the savings, which client work is most AI-leveraged. Rapid-turnaround work gets a 30-second micro-log (date, client, deliverable, classification, one-line note) because the goal is sustained habit, not perfect documentation of every keystroke.
When this triggers
- ·A client's contract or AUP now requires disclosure of AI use and you have nothing on file
- ·You want a defensible record in case of a future dispute about AI involvement
- ·You're trying to figure out where AI actually saves time vs. creates rework
- ·Your team's AI use is inconsistent and you need a shared log format
- ·You're building an AI transparency policy and need the underlying data to back it
Example
Trigger
User: 'Need to log a blog post we just shipped. Used Claude for the first draft, I rewrote about half, added 2 client-specific examples. Want a 2-minute log entry, not a thesis.'
Output
Date: 2026-05-20 Client: [Acme] Deliverable: Blog post — supply chain trends Classification: AI-Assisted (~60% AI baseline, ~50% changed) Task definition: · Defined by: [Name]. Brief based on client's Q1 priorities call. · Context applied: their pivot to nearshoring, CEO's stated preference for plain language over jargon. AI involvement: · Tool: Claude 4.5 Opus · Prompt: outline + draft on 2026 supply chain shifts for mid-market manufacturers · Output: 1,200-word draft, 5-section outline Human contribution: · Rewrote intro and conclusion (generic → specific to client) · Added 2 examples from client's Q1 report (AI didn't have these) · Removed 3 generic paragraphs that didn't add value · Adjusted tone academic → conversational per house style · Caught one invented stat — removed Quality checks: [✓] factual [✓] brand [✓] client-fit [✓] peer review Final: ~50% AI baseline, ~50% human revision and addition. Human value: client-specific examples, tone fit, and the stat that would have shipped wrong without the review.
Get this skill + 15 more
Included in the The Agency Owner Stack — scale delivery without scaling headcount. Save $130+ vs buying individually.
Get The Agency Owner Stack — $149What you get
- 138-line SKILL.md, ready to drop into ~/.claude/skills/
- Tested through 3 Karpathy-loop iterations (versions v1.0.0 → v1.3.0)
- Triggers automatically when relevant — no command to remember
- Lifetime updates as the skill is refined further
More from Agency Operations
Takes a team roster, current projects, and pipeline, then produce a clear capacity model that shows where people are over-allocated, where there's slack, and what happens when pipeline converts
Runs the full process: extracting the right information, building the story arc, formatting for multiple distribution channels, and creating a distribution plan
Takes an agency's services, clients, strengths, and values, then craft a differentiated positioning statement and elevator pitch that makes them stand out in a crowded market
Takes 3 months of performance data and client context, then build a QBR document that demonstrates value delivered, frames performance honestly, identifies wins to celebrate, and positions natural…
Reviews any AI-assisted deliverable before it goes to a client and flag factual errors, AI-typical language patterns, tone inconsistencies, and structural issues that would undermine credibility
Builds the argument — both internal conviction and external messaging — for why a human agency is worth paying for when AI can generate content, analyse data, and build websites for nearly free
Browse the full library
296 skills across 33 categories. One purchase, lifetime updates.
See all bundles