BotCurrent↗
← Back to examples

Community recipe

Turn a cooking video into an attributed recipe entry

A saved cooking clip can be hard to use when quantities are spoken, ingredients appear only on screen and the useful steps are scattered through the video.

Read original recipe
Suggested result

An attributed ingredient-and-step draft, evidence questions, a thumbnail choice and a separate save/publication decision.

What you need: Source-named agent: Claude Code; other documented MCP-capable hosts. Suggested inputs: Authorized source; Save decision. Begin with a local draft and no service connection. Before a later save, inspect the live destination’s visibility and exact upload payload. Workflow costs and current compatibility remain unverified.

Proposed: approve source rights, processing scope and destination visibility before any hosted save.

Community recipe. BotCurrent has not independently tested this workflow.

Setup and access

Proposed inputs

  1. Name

    Authorized source

    Owner

    Creator or rights holder

    Minimum scope

    One owned cooking clip, captions and an attribution line.

    Quality check

    Confirm reuse rights and exclude private background material.

  2. Name

    Save decision

    Owner

    Owner

    Minimum scope

    Proposed destination and explicit visibility choice.

    Quality check

    Do not assume a library entry is private or approve publishing merely by approving extraction.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

  1. Begin with a local draft and no service connection. Before a later save, inspect the live destination’s visibility and exact upload payload.

Compatibility unknowns

  1. Unknown: current connector contract, visibility defaults, extraction compatibility and provider charges.

External actions requiring approval

  1. Approve installations, persistent connections, audio processing, thumbnail upload and any public save or translation as distinct scoped actions.

Detailed steps and output format

At a glance

Suggested result
An attributed ingredient-and-step draft, evidence questions, a thumbnail choice and a separate save/publication decision.Suggested; untested.
Tool
Claude Code; other documented MCP-capable hostsSource-named; check current access.
Suggested inputs
Authorized source; Save decisionProposed; access notes below.
Human review
Proposed: approve source rights, processing scope and destination visibility before any hosted save.Suggested boundaries; source approvals below.
Setup notes
Begin with a local draft and no service connection. Before a later save, inspect the live destination’s visibility and exact upload payload.Guide notes; proposed setup untested.
Cost
Workflow cost not established. Check current tool pricing, setup and human review costs before trying it.No measured cost or time added.
Content depth
Source-linked example · suggestions untestedDepth does not establish successful execution.
Check source evidence and limits ↓

Function and scope

Personal · Single task

Editorial classification; no execution or compatibility test is implied.

No tool mapping reviewed for this task.

Source-backed example. Practical decision guidance is proposed and untested; this is not a full implementation guide.

The problem

A saved cooking clip can be hard to use when quantities are spoken, ingredients appear only on screen and the useful steps are scattered through the video.

Suggested task · untested

Prepare a source-linked recipe candidate whose uncertain quantities and action timestamps remain visible before any hosted save.

What you could produce

An attributed ingredient-and-step draft, evidence questions, a thumbnail choice and a separate save/publication decision.

Where these suggestions come from
  • Core problem: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Agent job: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Expected output: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Relevant job roles: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
  • Benefit type: Our suggestion; no result reported by the source
Suggestions and their limits

Describes the proposed purpose and review output; measured benefit and successful delivery are not established.

Editorial synthesis based on the linked source. This framing does not add evidence of successful delivery or results.

Before you try it · suggestions untested

Original decision guidance and synthetic first check, separate from the documented source procedure; neither has been executed here.

Read the attributed source evidence and original caveats below ↓

Why use this

  1. Replaying a clip while preparing ingredients makes small discrepancies easy to miss. A structured draft can expose what the source actually establishes and where a cook still needs clarification.

  2. Attribution and publication intent matter: a convenient personal reference should not quietly become redistribution of another creator’s work.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Reconcile a visible measure with narration, identify missing evidence and connect a step to the moment it is demonstrated.

Simpler alternative

Use the creator’s existing written recipe or save a bookmark when that already contains the needed detail.

Unsuitable when

The source lacks reuse permission or the task asks for allergen, infant-feeding or food-safety certification.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

A draft with source attribution, ingredient evidence, step-to-frame references and unresolved fields outside any publishable description.

Critical checks

  1. Keep disputed measures unresolved until the owner checks the original; an estimate must never become an unqualified quantity.

  2. A timestamp must point to the stated action, not a nearby introduction.

  3. Confirm the saved entry and image under the approved visibility before claiming success; preserve the existing entry’s identity on an approved update.

Missing output evidence

No completed output or independently observed run was inspected in this research.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a short cooking storyboard with four timestamped frames. Put 10 g in one overlay, 15 g in the matching narration, leave servings unstated and repeat the same source under two tracking URLs.

Acceptance checks

  1. The quantity conflict and absent servings remain explicit.

  2. Both URLs resolve to one candidate record, with no automatic replacement.

  3. The review stops before saving, uploading or translating; no cooking-safety claim is made.

Stop conditions

  1. Stop on uncertain reuse rights, unclear visibility or a sensitive dietary request.

Tasks: Home & errandsAudio & videoResearch & discovery

Useful for: General use

Editorial relevance from the title and source-supported actions; not evidence of the operator’s occupation.
Claude Code; other documented MCP-capable hostsIndependent testing: No
Failure handling, costs and limits

Failure signals and proposed responses

  1. Signal

    Narration and an overlay give different amounts.

    Why it matters

    Choosing silently can change the dish.

    Proposed response

    Present both signals and ask for a decision; do not scale the disputed amount.

  2. Signal

    A returned link is public despite a private-reference intent.

    Why it matters

    The save could disclose or redistribute content.

    Proposed response

    Stop further uploads or distribution, tell the owner which link and visibility were observed, and request an approved containment or visibility change. Preserve the evidence; do not claim that exposure was prevented or that removal succeeded.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

  1. Choose a rights-cleared clip and settle whether any hosted storage is wanted.

Ongoing review

  1. The owner checks quantities, source credit and publication scope.

Unknowns

  1. Unknown: model and transcription cost, service availability and manual correction effort.

Limits

  1. This is evidence organization, not a cooking validation or permission to publish third-party recipe prose.

Full source evidence

Community recipe · Tool workflows

Original task title: Turn a cooking video into an attributed recipe entry

Editorial candidate. This is source-backed reporting or a documented workflow. BotCurrent has not independently tested this task. A proposed Canadian adaptation is not evidence of a Canadian deployment or compliance certification.

Original source

https://github.com/mag-dot/nourishible-mcp/blob/main/SKILL.md ↗

Attributed to: nourishible / mag-dot

Supporting source context

Project documentation supporting the linked recipe’s scope, permissions and limits. These references do not establish an independent test or add counted jobs.

Community recipe
Original action type
tool_action
What the source reports
Reconciles cooking-video frames, captions and transcript; structures ingredients and timestamped steps; flags uncertain fields; checks duplicate source identities; saves the recipe and thumbnail through Nourishible tools and reads back the result.
Source outcome limits
Saving can publish after thumbnail upload; admin translations can follow automatically. Unstated servings may be estimated. No saved entry, cooking outcome or current service behavior was verified.
Evidence attribution caveat
This community recipe describes a procedure; it does not prove successful execution or independently reproduced results.
Source approval description
Re-extraction asks before updating an existing entry. OAuth requires the owner. A separate per-recipe publication confirmation is not documented.
Named tools
Claude Code; local extraction tools; ffmpeg; yt-dlp; Nourishible MCP.
Model or version
Unknown
Publication date
Unknown
Source last checked
2026-10-14
Demonstrated in Canada
Unknown
Canadian availability
Unknown
Proposed Canadian adaptation
Apply the owner’s local requirements; Canadian execution or compliance is not established.
Recommended approval boundaries
Proposed: approve source rights, processing scope and destination visibility before any hosted save.