Users generally praise "Outlines" for its intuitive interface and effective organization tools, making it popular for planning and structuring content. Key complaints often center around limited advanced features and occasional glitches in the software. Pricing sentiment among users varies, with some finding it reasonable for the features offered and others expecting more functionality for the price. Overall, "Outlines" maintains a solid reputation, particularly among users who prioritize ease of use in their workflow tools.
Mentions (30d)
16
Reviews
0
Platforms
2
GitHub Stars
13,618
676 forks
Users generally praise "Outlines" for its intuitive interface and effective organization tools, making it popular for planning and structuring content. Key complaints often center around limited advanced features and occasional glitches in the software. Pricing sentiment among users varies, with some finding it reasonable for the features offered and others expecting more functionality for the price. Overall, "Outlines" maintains a solid reputation, particularly among users who prioritize ease of use in their workflow tools.
Features
Use Cases
83
GitHub followers
13,618
GitHub stars
20
npm packages
MergeNB: An intuitive merge conflict resolver built for Jupyter notebooks in VS Code [P]
I used to work heavily with Jupyter Notebooks + git + VS Code in a collaborative research setting and found nbdime to be somewhat buggy/a hassle to work with in general. So, in typical side project fashion (relevant xkcd) I've been working on MergeNB quite a bit over the last 6 months or so. It's (currently only) a VS Code extension with a web UI, and has a few cool improvements over other alternatives, which I outlined in the README/docs site. I'd be over the moon if this actually gets used by people, and would love a star if it's interesting. See https://github.com/Avni2000/MergeNB. I've also been working on a static documentation site here: https://avni2000.github.io/MergeNB/docs I'm planning on working on it a lot more over the summer and properly fleshing out a few of the ideas I had (including making it a git mergetool as well as a VS Code extension), so if you'd like to contribute, feel free to raise an issue or shoot me a message/email :) submitted by /u/EnderAvni [link] [comments]
View originalDevelop an efficient Client File Audit SOP. Prompt included.
Hello! Are you struggling to create a comprehensive and organized Client File Audit SOP for your medical spa? This prompt chain will help you develop a clear outline and full SOP tailored to your specific medspa operations, ensuring compliance and efficiency in your audit processes. Prompt: VARIABLE DEFINITIONS [MEDSPA_NAME]=Official name of the medspa [AUDIT_FREQUENCY]=How often the audit is performed (e.g., monthly, quarterly) [SAMPLE_SIZE_PERCENT]=Percentage of total active client files reviewed each audit cycle ~ You are a healthcare compliance consultant specializing in medical spa operations. Your first task is to develop a clear, organized outline for a Client File Audit SOP for [MEDSPA_NAME]. Follow these instructions: 1. List major SOP sections (e.g., Purpose, Scope, Responsibilities, Definitions, Procedure, Documentation & Record-Keeping, Escalation & Corrective Action, Appendices). 2. Under Procedure, include planned subsections for sampling method, evidence checklist (intake forms, consent documents, appointment records, staff training logs, incident notes), logging of missing items, and escalation triggers. 3. Present the outline as a numbered list with subsection bullets. 4. Ask for confirmation or required adjustments before moving on. Example output style: 1. Purpose 2. Scope • Clients included/excluded 3. Responsibilities • Compliance Officer: … ~ You are still the healthcare compliance consultant. Expand the approved outline into a full Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for auditing client files at [MEDSPA_NAME]. Steps: 1. Write each SOP section in full sentences and paragraphs; use clear headings. 2. Under "Procedure," detail: a. Sampling methodology: random selection of [SAMPLE_SIZE_PERCENT]% of active files per [AUDIT_FREQUENCY]. b. Evidence checklist specifying required documents (intake forms, consent documents, appointment records, staff training logs linked to service provider, incident notes) and what to verify within each (dates, signatures, completeness). c. Step-by-step audit workflow: preparation, file review, documentation of findings, exit meeting. 3. Under "Documentation & Record-Keeping," include an Audit Log Sheet template table with columns: File ID, Document Type, Evidence Found (Y/N), Notes, Corrective Owner, Due Date, Status. 4. Under "Escalation & Corrective Action," define thresholds for escalation (e.g., >10% critical gaps) and escalation path (Lead Aesthetician → Compliance Officer → Medical Director). 5. Keep language formal and compliance-oriented. 6. Return the complete SOP. ~ Generate two ready-to-use templates referenced in the SOP: 1. Missing Items Tracker (table format with pre-filled column headers). 2. Escalation Decision Tree (flowchart described in text form: IF/THEN steps). Ensure templates align with terminology used in the SOP. ~ Review / Refinement Re-read the entire SOP and templates. Confirm they: 1. Address all required document types. 2. Define sampling, evidence checks, logging, and escalation clearly. 3. Conform to professional tone and formatting. If any criteria are unmet, revise accordingly. Output final refined SOP and templates. Ask the user for any last changes needed. submitted by /u/CalendarVarious3992 [link] [comments]
View originalStoryboard generated from GPT image 2.0
I gave GPT a set of prompts that I found a bit too complicated, and to my surprise, it generated content that matched perfectly. I'm very curious about how GPT Image 2.0 works behind the scenes, and how it can understand and produce high-quality images so quickly. prompt:**PROJECT FILE: HIGH-ALTITUDE ASCENT // PREMIUM HARDSHELL CAMPAIGN** **FORMAT: ARRIRAW 4.5K / KODAK VISION3 50D 5203 EMULATION** **DIRECTOR'S PRE-PRODUCTION VISUAL BOARD** --- ### Top Left Area | Character Lock Zone **[SUBJECT]** 35-year-old male mountain guide/extreme climber. **[WARDROBE]** Top-of-the-line professional jacket (matte rock grey with minimal dark orange taped details), heavy-duty climbing harness. **[VIEWS]** - **Front:** The jacket is fully zipped up, hood pulled up, showcasing a three-dimensional cut and natural drape. - **Side:** Shows ample shoulder and arm movement without bulkiness. - **Back:** Shows the windproof and breathable back panel structure. - **3/4 View:** Dynamic standing pose, holding an ice axe. **[REALISM NOTES]** Realistic human bone structure, slightly asymmetrical. The face has the rough texture of high-altitude red and sun-dried skin, with clearly defined pores and stubble with a frosty look. Rejecting perfect plastic skin, rejecting CG aesthetics. Like a real makeup test photo. --- ### Top Right Area | Expression + Motion Keyframes (EXPRESSION & ACTION) **[EXPRESSIONS]** **Focused:** Slightly furrowed brows, resolute gaze, staring at the rock face above. **Bracing:** Squinting against the strong wind, facial muscles tense. **Breathing:** Lips slightly parted, exhaling real white mist. **[ACTIONS]** **Hood Adjustment:** Pulling the drawstring of the hood with one hand. **Ice Axe Swing:** Arm raised high with force, no pulling sensation under the armpits of the jacket. **Brushing Snow:** Brushing snow off the shoulders, demonstrating the fabric's water-repellent properties. --- ### Upper Middle Area | CAMERA PLAN **[GEAR]** ARRI Alexa Mini LF + Master Prime lens set. **[LENSES]** 24mm (wide-angle environment), 50mm (medium-range tracking shot), 100mm Macro (fabric close-up). **[MOVEMENT PLAN]** - **Shot A (Drone/Crane):** A wide, overhead view, slowly pushing in along a snow-covered ridge. - **Shot B (Handheld):** Shoulder-mounted camera, following the character's movements, with realistic breathing and slight shaking. - **Shot C (Slider):** A close-up panning shot close to the clothing, showing water droplets sliding off. --- ### Central Main Area | Continuous Story Shots (STORYBOARD: 8 PANELS) **[PANEL 01]** - **Shot:** 01 | 24mm | Wide Shot (EWS) | Slow Push-In - **Action:** A tiny figure struggles through a massive natural storm on a snow-covered ridge. - **Detail:** Strong atmospheric perspective; the wind and snow create a realistic fog effect; slight chromatic aberration at the edges of the image. **[PANEL 02]** - **Shot:** 02 | 50mm | Mid Shot | Shoulder-mounted tracking shot - **Action:** A man walks against a blizzard; the strong wind whips against his rain jacket, creating realistic physical wrinkles on the surface, but the overall silhouette remains sturdy. - **Detail:** Noticeable film grain; the snow-capped mountains in the background are slightly out of focus. **[PANEL 03]** - **Shot:** 03 | 100mm Macro | Extreme Close-up (ECU) | Fixed Macro - **Action:** Icy snowmelt hits the shoulders of the rain jacket. - **Detail:** The lotus effect is realistically rendered—water droplets condense and quickly roll off the matte micro-ripstop fabric without penetrating. **[PANEL 04]** - **Shot:** 04 | 85mm | Close-up of face (CU) | Slow motion - **Action:** The man stops and looks up. Real ice crystals cling to his eyelashes, and his breath dissipates at his collar. - **Detail:** Natural skin tone, without excessive blurring; realistic catchlight in his eyes reflects the snow wall ahead. **[PANEL 05]** - **Shot:** 05 | 35mm | Low Angle Full | Handheld, low-angle shot - **Action:** He swings his ice axe into the ice wall, climbing upwards. - **Detail:** Emphasis on showcasing the flexibility of the jacket during vigorous movement; no feeling of restriction; realistic light and shadow highlight the garment's three-dimensional cut. **[PANEL 06]** - **Shot:** 06 | 100mm Macro | Close-up Detail (Insert) | Shallow Depth of Field - **Action:** A heavily gloved hand pulls a waterproof zipper across the chest. - **Detail:** The matte waterproof rubberized finish of the zipper and the clearly visible scratches on the brushed metal zipper pull exude a strong sense of industrial design. **[PANEL 07]** - **Shot:** 07 | 50mm | Over-the-Shoulder Lens (OTS) | Slow Zoom In - **Action:** Over the man's shoulder, we see him finally reaching the summit, sunlight piercing through the clouds and shining on him. - **Detail:** Realistic lens flare, not exaggerated, natural glow. **[PANEL 08]** - **Shot:** 08 | 35mm | Mid Shot | Still Camera - **Action:*
View originalUsing Claude ai and Claude code optimally?
So I’m relatively new to using Claude - have some coding experience but by no means anything in terms of building infrastructure. I want to outline how I’ve used Claude so far for my personal projects and see if anyone can help optimise this strategy: I start of outlining a general idea in Claude ai and ask to discuss it and ask me questions about what I want. So for example I built a website where I had a clear idea in my head which I needed to convey to Claude. We talk for a while about it so Claude is on the same page as me as best as I can confirm. Claude then makes a full spec document in pdf from about the project - idea, goal, phases of development etc etc - generally about 25 pages. I review it and let it know any tweaks. I tell Claude I want the document to be a living roadmap i.e. we update it often when I come up with new idea etc. I also tell Claude the work flow is Claude as the architect, Claude code is the builder and I am the go between. I then feed that document to Claude code (as a .md file in git hub) and behind building according to the roadmap in the spec doc. As we go we update the spec doc and re brief Claude code accordingly while it builds the project. Is there more optimal way than this that anyone has used? submitted by /u/DiscombobulatedElk58 [link] [comments]
View originalFunny Claude
Haha! Wth? Opus has big fingers? submitted by /u/Cooked2Antimatter [link] [comments]
View originalPassed Claude CCA-F with 10+ teammates — notes and prep advice
Over the past few weeks, 10+ people on our team have taken and passed the Claude Certified Architect – Foundations (CCA-F) exam. After comparing notes, our main takeaway is: This is not really an API memorization exam. It is much closer to a scenario-based architecture judgment exam. You are not just asked whether you know a Claude feature. You are asked whether you can make reasonable design trade-offs when Claude is used inside real products, agent workflows, developer tools, and automation systems. Some of the recurring questions are more like: Should this task be handled by one agent or multiple sub-agents? Is this tool doing too much? Are the permissions too broad? Is MCP actually needed here, or is it over-engineering? Should this action be automated, or should there be human review? How should structured output be validated? How should long-context workflows be managed reliably? What is the safest next step in a partially automated system? Here are our notes for anyone preparing for the exam. 1. Basic exam structure Based on the official outline and public exam writeups, the exam is: 120 minutes Multiple choice 4 options per question Score range: 100–1000 Passing score: 720 The exam domains are: Agent architecture and orchestration — 27% Tool design and MCP integration — 18% Claude Code configuration and workflows — 20% Prompt engineering and structured output — 20% Context management and reliability — 15% One public writeup also mentioned that there are 6 scenario categories, and the exam randomly selects 4 of them. So this is not a “random facts about Claude” exam. It is much more about reading a realistic scenario and choosing the safest, simplest, most appropriate architecture. 2. The three principles that kept coming up After reviewing the questions we struggled with, we found that many of them came back to three design principles. 1. Least privilege Do not give a tool, agent, or workflow more access than it needs. Examples: If read-only access is enough, do not grant write access. If access to one repository is enough, do not grant access to the whole workspace. If a tool only needs one narrow action, do not expose a broad system-level capability. If an action is high-risk, do not fully automate it without review. A lot of wrong answers look attractive because they are powerful or automated. But they often give the model or tool too much authority. 2. Single responsibility A tool should not do everything. A sub-agent should not become a “general-purpose employee” that retrieves data, makes decisions, modifies files, submits changes, and notifies people all in one step. Many questions test whether you understand where the responsibility should live: Should this be a tool? Should this be agent reasoning? Should this be a human decision? Should this be a separate validation layer? Should this be split into smaller components? If one component is doing too much, be careful. 3. Avoid over-engineering This was probably the biggest pattern. Some answers look sophisticated: Multi-agent orchestration Complex MCP workflows Long-term memory Fully automated tool execution Multi-stage validation pipelines But if the problem is small, narrow, and low-risk, the best answer is often the simplest controlled solution. Our internal summary was: Do not choose the most impressive architecture. Choose the smallest, safest, most controllable one. 3. English reading is a real hidden challenge For non-native English speakers, this may be one of the hardest parts. The questions are often long scenario descriptions. They may include: the current system design the team’s goal existing constraints the risk profile what tools are available what the next step should be The answer choices can also be long. Sometimes one word changes the meaning of the whole option. Words like: automatically always unrestricted without review full access all repositories execute directly can make an option much riskier than it first appears. So our advice is: Practice reading English scenarios directly. Do not rely on translation tools. During the actual proctored exam, you should not expect to use Google Translate, Chrome translation, DeepL, Claude, ChatGPT, or any other external translation tool. For the last few days before the exam, it is worth forcing yourself to read only English material and English practice questions. 4. ProctorFree exam setup The exam is online and uses ProctorFree. The rough flow is: You receive the exam email. You follow the exam link. You download and install ProctorFree. You complete the pre-exam setup. The system checks camera, microphone, network, and screen recording. You start the exam. The session is recorded. After submission, you wait for the upload to complete. Practical setup tips: Use only one monitor. Disconnect external displays. Close unnecessary applications. Clos
View originalGlia – Local-first shared memory layer (SQLite-vec + FTS5 + Offline Knowledge Graph)
Hey everyone, I wanted to share a project I've been working on called Glia. It is a 100% offline, local-first RAG and memory layer designed to connect your AI web chats (Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek) with your local developer tools (Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf) using a unified local database. I wanted something lightweight that did not require pulling heavy Docker containers or subscribing to third-party memory APIs. I settled on a Node.js + SQLite architecture running sqlite-vec (for 768-dim float32 embeddings) alongside SQLite FTS5 for hybrid search, powered completely by local Ollama instances. We just launched a live website that outlines the details and demonstrates the features in action: Website: https://glia-ai.vercel.app/ Codebase: https://github.com/Eshaan-Nair/Glia-AI Technical Stack & Features: Hybrid Search Retrieval: SQLite-vec (using nomic-embed-text locally) + FTS5 keyword prefix matching (porter stemmer). Surgical Sentence-level Trimming: Chunks are sliced into sentences. When a prompt is intercepted, only the exact matching sentences are pulled out of the vector store instead of the whole paragraph. It cuts LLM prompt bloat by ~90-95% in my benchmarks. Knowledge Graph Extraction: An offline task queue uses a local LLM (llama3.1:8b via Ollama) to extract entity triples (subject-relation-object). These are stored in a SQLite facts table (or Neo4j if you run the full Docker compose profile) and fused with the vector retrieval score. HyDE (Hypothetical Document Embeddings): Queries are pre-processed to generate a hypothetical answer, which is embedded together with the original query to bridge semantic gaps. Concurrency: Running SQLite in WAL (Write-Ahead Logging) mode allows the browser extension dashboard and active MCP sessions to read/write concurrently without locking. PII Redaction: Aggressive scrubbing of JWTs, API keys, emails, and IPs in the extension before data is saved. The extension works on Claude.ai, ChatGPT, DeepSeek, Gemini, Grok, and Mistral. The MCP server runs out of the same backend database for your terminal agent or Cursor. You can set it up with a single command: npx glia-ai-setup Glia is completely open-source (MIT). If you like the local-first approach or want to contribute to the SQLite vector pipeline, PRs are very welcome, and a star on GitHub helps the project get discovered! I would appreciate any feedback on the SQLite hybrid search scaling, the scoring fusion algorithm (RAG pipeline details are in RAG_PIPELINE.md), or local graph extraction performance. submitted by /u/Better-Platypus-3420 [link] [comments]
View originalProfessor said I used AI
I had completed an assignment, all of which I’ve used AI in help to do them. But I type them up completely on my own. This on particular assignment all he said was that AI was basically flagged, and he would have to give me a zero. I responded with just truth on the fact I used AI for outline and organizing thoughts, and I see now that I leaned too heavily on that outline when writing the paper. Should I have lied? What do you think I should do next? A lot coming up for me academically in the next year and this makes me nervous. I know I’m not in the right, but still looking for general advice. submitted by /u/aspiringphilosopher6 [link] [comments]
View originalThe Power of a Full Writers Room, in the Palm of your Hand.
So this project was built exclusively with Claude, Claude Code, and Claude Design. It was built to solve a problem that I have. I'm absolutely horrible at turning a story idea into an outline. I have a LOT of story ideas. Give me a detailed blueprint and I will write the holy hell out of it... But, building that blueprint myself? ABSOLUTELY Hopeless. And I have so many ideas just rotting in a folder because I couldn't get them off the ground. So I built AI-StoryForge. This is not another AI writing tool. It doesn't write a single line of your story. What it does is solve the part that was killing me and probably killing you too! It tracks your information so your plot doesn't contradict itself. It builds psychological profiles for your characters so you can write them like real people, not mechanical puppets, all based on real researched Psychology and Neuroscience. It does live market research against current and past bestsellers. You will know exactly where your idea and story fit in the market before you even write a single word. It maps your story idea and genre selections against genre expectations. It offers you genre conventions to follow so you don't accidentally break rules you don't know exist. Or maybe you do! That's the beauty! Your words. Your voice. Your story. AI-StoryForge just hands you the blueprint to follow. Or not. Your choice. Visit us at www.ai-storyforge.com to see what we offer. submitted by /u/Tartarus1040 [link] [comments]
View originalI thought AI articles could be generated with 2-3 prompts. I ended up building an 11-step workflow.
When I started this project, I honestly thought article generation would be simple: Give Claude a topic Ask for an outline Generate the article Done In reality... the output usually felt generic, repetitive, or structurally weak. So over time the workflow became much more complex. Right now the pipeline I built with Claude Code uses ~11 separate prompts/steps: topic planning search intent analysis outline generation competitor structure analysis section-by-section generation intro/conclusion generation content enhancement internal linking SEO cleanup image generation final formatting/export One thing that improved quality a lot: I stopped treating article generation as a single prompt. Generating sections independently with focused context produced MUCH better results than asking for a full article at once. Another big improvement: I started enriching prompts with external SEO/search data. Now the workflow also analyzes: Google search result structures competitor headings/topics related keyword data search intent patterns I use SEO APIs to feed that data into the prompts before generation. The result feels way less “AI fluffy” compared to my earlier versions. I’ve been testing it on my own websites (one blog for dog owners and website about tattoo) I publish content on two blogs and use this workflow regularly there. I’m actually pretty happy with the results I’m getting from it. OutscoreAgent Still experimenting a lot with workflows/agents, so I’d genuinely love feedback from people here using Claude for similar tasks. There’s a free tier (5 free articles + 14-day trial) if anyone wants to test it. submitted by /u/PlentyButterfly4462 [link] [comments]
View originalWorld building for book
Personally I been using both Gemini and Claude for my world building text. Gemini has been good for basic character design and appearance. Both are good for generating and verifying ideas in framework. As long as I keep Gemini notebook source and Claude project/chat updated, it does fine. I prefer Claude’s colorful organized layout, but that uses up too many resources. I have only done small scenes in prose in both it’s ok. I rather at build chapter outlines for now. Still characters bibles to finalize and other details to build. I have not figured out what other tools would simplify things and possibly edit my prose processes to find gaps not following world rules. submitted by /u/Beneficial-Onion-195 [link] [comments]
View originalWhy claude code doesn’t have SSH?
submitted by /u/Alternative-Way-3685 [link] [comments]
View originalAnthropic just published a pretty alarming 2028 AI scenario paper and it's not about AGI safety in the usual sense
Anthropic dropped a new research paper today outlining two possible futures for global AI leadership by 2028, and it reads more like a geopolitical briefing than a typical AI safety paper. The core argument: The US currently has a meaningful lead over China in frontier AI, primarily because of compute (chips). American and allied companies (NVIDIA, TSMC, ASML, etc.) built technology China simply can't replicate yet. Export controls have made that gap real. But China's labs have stayed surprisingly close through two workarounds: Chip smuggling + overseas data center access - PRC labs are apparently training on export-controlled US chips they shouldn't have. A Supermicro co-founder was recently charged for diverting $2.5B worth of servers to China. Distillation attacks - creating thousands of fake accounts on US AI platforms, harvesting model outputs at scale, and using that to train their own models. Essentially free-riding on billions in US R&D. The two scenarios for 2028: Scenario 1 (good): US closes the loopholes, enforces export controls properly, the compute gap widens to 11x, and US models stay 12-24 months ahead. Democracies set the norms for how AI is governed globally. Scenario 2 (bad): US doesn't act, China reaches near-parity, floods global markets with cheaper models, and the CCP ends up shaping global AI norms, including potentially exporting AI-enabled surveillance tools to other authoritarian governments. What makes this interesting beyond the politics: Their new model, Mythos Preview (released to select partners in April), apparently let Firefox fix more security bugs in one month than in all of 2025. That's the kind of capability jump they're warning China shouldn't be the first to achieve, specifically around autonomous vulnerability discovery. The framing worth discussing: Anthropic is explicitly calling distillation attacks "industrial espionage" and pushing for legislation to criminalize them. This positions them as political actors, not just AI researchers. Whether that's appropriate for an AI lab is a conversation worth having. What do you think - is the compute gap as decisive as they claim, or is algorithmic innovation enough to close it? submitted by /u/Direct-Attention8597 [link] [comments]
View originalChatGPT/Gemini saved me $4200 from a scam land lord and only took me 1-2 hours.
So I've been using ChatGPT and Gemini to not only learn things but help it process bulk work. I imagine I'm like most of the people here and have experience with applied AI, agents, know how LLMs work internally, etc. I moved out of San Francisco and my landlord tried to hold $4200 of a $5000 deposit for an apartment, with sham/fake claims about damage to the apartment, etc. Now, I COULD have spent a week reading all of the laws in San Francisco regarding tenant rights, etc. But ChatGPT/Gemini did it VERY fast. I used both of them collaboratively to fact check one another, make suggestions, make sure there were no flaws, etc Then periodically I would dump the context, start over again, so that it can give new review from a blank slate. It found that they were in violation of a new law called AB2801 (as well as a few others). The LLMs highlighted the parts that were in violation. It also found that they tried to charge me 100% of a SF Tenant fee that, while only $59, was still theft. They're only allowed to charge 50% so I had it change that to $29.50. Basically, they provided no paperwork, no receipts, no before after photos. All of that is now illegal in San Francisco. Gemini then cranked out an AMAZINGLY professional demand letter from JUST my notes. I just created a raw outline of what I wanted, based on its research, including all the metadata like their names, etc. Gemini EVEN drafted it as a PDF for me. What's great is that it also highlighted that, if I take her to small claims court, I can get the FULL deposit back PLUS 2x in punitive damages. That would have been about $17k. Anyway. An hour after I sent the demand letter, they didn't reply, they just send me the $4200 I demanded. I yielded $800 in some fees that were part of the lease so, if it made it to a judge, I would seem fair. Mind you, this was like about 2 hours of work on my part. I've been doing this non-stop this week and this workflow has saved me a MASSIVE amount of money. For example, I knocked down a car dealership charge from $1500 to $1000 because they tried to charge me for work I didn't need. Get that $$$ man! Score one for the little guy! submitted by /u/brainhack3r [link] [comments]
View originalthe weirdest thing that worked for me building with claude: i drew coordinates directly onto my template images, and claude can see everything
building a zine-making app (90s/y2k aesthetic, hot pink, chunky outlines, all that). the templates are real designed layouts (y2k chat bubbles, riot grrrl flyer collages, myspace-style pages). each one has multiple zones where the user can drop in their own photos and text. the obvious approach was building every template in code, programmatically defining where the photo slots go. which means every template's look is constrained by what i can build by hand. boring, and the designs would all end up looking like the same grid in different colors. just like other generic apps. what i did instead: designed the templates in figma (some generated with image AI, then cleaned up), exported as flat PNGs, then opened them up and literally drew colored rectangles on top in a separate layer. for example: red for photo slots, blue for text. fed both the design and the annotation image to claude. it extracted the coordinates, generated the editable area definitions, wired up the tap targets. an afternoon of work for what would have been weeks of building a custom layout engine by hand. and the kicker: i can add a new template now by designing it and drawing the boxes. no code change. that's the entire design-tool system for the app and it came from a workaround. the broader pattern i've gotten religion on from this project, and everyone asks me how i design my apps, so here it is: i do the design thinking on paper first, before claude sees anything. i sketch screens by hand. i pick the full color palette before writing a single line. i decide the type hierarchy. i screenshot apps i like and annotate the specific things i want to steal from each one. then i hand claude the constraints and ask for implementation. going the other way like "design me an app, make it look 90s" is the path where you spend three days nudging it toward something that still feels generic. claude is incredible at implementing a specific vision faithfully. it's much weaker at having the vision for you in the first place. once i internalized that the design work was my job and the implementation was its job, my output quality jumped. the unglamorous stuff that also mattered: describing visual problems in terms of weight, hierarchy, and rhythm instead of "this looks off, make it better" pasting in hex codes i picked from real reference photos instead of saying "warm pink" so being specific about which app's spacing i was trying to mimic, not just naming the vibe. the app is zinecore if anyone wants to see what came out of it but the paper-first thing is the part that's actually transferable. https://apps.apple.com/tr/app/zinecore/id6763522374 submitted by /u/ezgar6 [link] [comments]
View originalRepository Audit Available
Deep analysis of outlines-dev/outlines — architecture, costs, security, dependencies & more
Key features include: Modular architecture for easy customization, Built-in support for multiple programming languages, Real-time collaboration tools for teams, Extensive documentation and tutorials, Version control integration for tracking changes, Responsive design for mobile and desktop use, Pre-built templates for common project types, Customizable UI components for enhanced user experience.
Outlines is commonly used for: There isn't a GitHub Pages site here., GitHub Pages.
Outlines integrates with: GitHub for version control, Slack for team communication, Jira for project management, Figma for design collaboration, Google Analytics for tracking user engagement, Trello for task management, Zapier for automating workflows, AWS for cloud hosting and services, Firebase for real-time database support, Stripe for payment processing.
Outlines has a public GitHub repository with 13,618 stars.
Based on user reviews and social mentions, the most common pain points are: token usage.
Connor Leahy
CEO at Conjecture
1 mention
Based on 68 social mentions analyzed, 19% of sentiment is positive, 81% neutral, and 0% negative.