DEV Community

Cover image for How to Mine Your Claude Code Config for Reusable Workflows
James Cruce
James Cruce

Posted on • Originally published at astgl.com

How to Mine Your Claude Code Config for Reusable Workflows

After extensive use of Claude Code, I realized my config files had become disorganized. I had a global CLAUDE.md, ten project memory indices, a hundred individual memory files, twenty-three project-level CLAUDE.md files, eleven custom command files, and six rules files spread across projects. Each contained repeated explanations, workflows, mistakes, or preferences, but lacked organization, searchability, and reusability. To address this, I conducted an experiment by asking Claude to analyze and extract information from all these files.

The Setup

The premise was simple: if I've been writing instructions to Claude for months, those instructions should contain patterns. The same workflows keep showing up. The same preferences get stated and restated. The same procedures get encoded in different files for different projects.

What if I treated my own config files as a dataset?

The goal: find every pattern that appeared in two or more source files, group them by domain, and generate a structured SKILL.md runbook for each one.

Source files to read - The 80+ source files, grouped by type:

Six config sources — the 228-line global CLAUDE.md, 10 memory indices, ~100 memory files, 23 project CLAUDE.md files, 11 custom commands, 6+ rules files — feed one skill-mining session that produces a 22-pattern frequency table, 22 SKILL.md files, and an INDEX.md.

 `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` (228 lines of global instructions)

    All `MEMORY.md` index files across project memory directories

    All individual `memory/*.md` files (about 100 of them)

    All project `CLAUDE.md` files (23 across active projects)

    Custom commands in `.claude/commands/*.md`

    Rules files in `.claude/rules/*.md`

Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

That's roughly 80+ files and several thousand lines of accumulated AI instructions.

What's Actually Going On

Here's the thing about Claude Code config files that took me a while to internalize: they're not documentation. They're not notes to self. They're a pattern library in disguise.

Every feedback_.md memory entry represents a correction I had to make more than once. Every project_.md entry encodes context that was load-bearing enough to write down. Every custom command I built was a workflow I ran often enough to automate.

The problem is that none of it is explicit. The patterns are implicit in the files. You wrote them under pressure, one at a time, solving immediate problems. You weren't thinking, “This is the third time I've explained the auto-merge workflow." You were just... explaining it again.

Skill mining makes the implicit explicit. It takes the accumulated knowledge in your config files and surfaces the signal: here are the things you keep doing, and here they are, written down properly so you can actually use them.

The Process

The mining session had four steps.

Step 1: File discovery. Find every source file using find and wc -l. List them. Count the lines. This alone is revealing—seeing 228 lines in your global CLAUDE.md and realizing you've written that many rules for yourself is a moment.

Step 2: Read everything in parallel. All MEMORY.md index files first, then the largest individual memory files, then project CLAUDE.md files, then custom commands and rules. Read them all, not to understand each one, but to see what keeps showing up.

Step 3: Build the frequency table. For each pattern identified, track what's the pattern, how many files mention it, and which files. The threshold is two occurrences. If a workflow or preference appears in two or more places, it deserves a dedicated runbook.

Step 4: Write SKILL.md files. One per pattern, grouped by domain, with a consistent structure: name, description, trigger conditions (when to use it), step-by-step instructions, and notes for edge cases.

What We Found

Twenty-two patterns with two or more occurrences across the 80+ files. Here's the frequency table:

The top tier (6 occurrences each) had four patterns: the Ironclad Workflow (my 4-phase dev process: Plan-Execute-Verify-Ship), gstack skill routing, the ClaudeClaw agent architecture primitives, and the Cortex memory tagging system. These showed up in six different files each. They're the backbone of how I work.

Below that: conventional commits (5 files), the ASTGL publishing pipeline (5 files), auto-merge PRs (4), secrets management via pass-cli and Keychain (4), the Resist and Rise editorial workflow (4 command files defining a complete journalism process), and the ACA Council product pipeline (4).

Then a cluster of patterns that appeared in three files each: session logging convention, MCP server distribution strategy, LaunchAgent services for macOS background processes, knowledge base article creation, and subagent model selection.

And a final tier at two occurrences: the rule about replacing Markdown tables with [GRAPHIC:] callouts in Substack articles, the 1-to-15+ content repurposing workflow, embedding-based relevance scoring, the Crucible fiction writing system, two-phase fact-checking, idea pool submission, and the agent self-improvement methodology.

The 22 mined patterns by source-file frequency. Top tier at 6 files each: Ironclad Workflow, gstack routing, agent architecture, Cortex memory tagging. Conventional commits and the ASTGL pipeline hit 5; a long tail bottoms out at 2 occurrences across 7 domains.

Twenty-two patterns. Twenty-two things I do repeatedly that I'd never looked at as a unified system

Why This Matters

There are a few things that surprised me when I saw the results laid out.

First, the coverage. I had patterns across six distinct domains: general dev workflow, ClaudeClaw agent configuration, ASTGL content, Resist and Rise journalism, secrets management, and fiction writing. I knew I worked across those areas, but seeing the patterns formalized across all of them in one place made the scope visible in a way it hadn't been before.

Second, the consistency. The Ironclad Workflow: ‘Plan-Execute-Verify-Ship’ showed up in six different project files. I never set out to teach it to six different projects. It crept in because it works, and I kept re-encoding it. That's the signature of a real pattern: it keeps appearing because you keep reaching for it, even when you're not thinking about it explicitly.

Third, what was missing. The domains I didn't find patterns in are equally informative. No PowerShell patterns. No VMware patterns. Those workflows exist, but they're not yet in my Claude Code config. That's a list of skills to mine next.

Quick Reference: Run Your Own Skill Mining Session

If you want to do this yourself, here's the structure:

Source files to mine:

`~/.claude/CLAUDE.md` (global instructions)

`~/.claude/projects/*/memory/MEMORY.md` (memory indices)

`~/.claude/projects//memory/.md` (individual memory files)

All `CLAUDE.md` files in `~/Projects/*/`

All `.claude/commands/*.md` files

All `.claude/rules/*.md` files
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

All 22 mined skills grouped under 7 domains: general-dev (6), claudeclaw-agents (7), astgl-content (4), resist-rise (2), plus single skills in secrets-management, cortex, and crucible — every one extracted from existing config files.

Minimum frequency: 2 occurrences to write a SKILL.md

SKILL.md structure:

The SKILL.md template as an editor view: name, description, occurrence count, and source files up top, then three sections — Trigger Conditions (when to use it), Steps (exactly what to do), and Notes (edge cases and gotchas) — using the Ironclad Workflow as the worked example.

Output location: ~/skill-mining/mined/<domain>/<skill-name>/SKILL.md

The prompt: Ask Claude to read all source files, build a frequency table (pattern name, occurrence count, source files), group by domain, and generate a SKILL.md for each pattern with 2+ occurrences. Generate an INDEX.md listing all skills with one-line descriptions and source evidence.

The whole session takes less than an hour. The patterns were already there. You just needed to ask.

Top comments (0)