CookbookKitchen and tableNo. 25
A cookbook manuscriptrecipe development, testing rounds and headnotes for a proposal
Recipe No. 25Kitchen and table
- For
- A food writer developing sixty recipes and a proposal for a first cookbook
- You bring
- Recipes in development, a kitchen notebook, a dozen volunteer recipe testers, and a literary agent waiting on the proposal
- You get
- A document per recipe holding its current version and every testing round, the decisions that settled each one, headnotes in your own words, and a proposal your literary agent can read behind a password
- Time
- An evening to set up, then twenty minutes after each test and each round of tester feedback, over the months of development
- Works in
- know.sh on the web · your AI assistant, through MCP
- Keep it
- Private while you work; share one document by a read-only link when it is ready.
A recipe in a cookbook has usually been made a dozen times before it is printed. The first test tells you the braise is too sweet; the third, with less cider, is right in your oven and wrong in a tester’s gas oven in Denver. By the time the manuscript is due, the question that matters is not “what is the recipe” but “why is it this way”, and the answer is scattered across notebook pages, texts from testers and three versions of the same file.
This recipe keeps the answer. Each recipe in development is a document whose overview is the current version. Each testing round is a numbered finding: what you changed, what happened, what the testers said. When you settle something, you file a Decision. The document’s revisions keep every version of the recipe, so round two is one click away when round three goes wrong. Testers read the current version on a password-protected link; your literary agent reads the proposal on another.
The assistant you already use, Claude, ChatGPT or a local model connected to know.sh, turns your notebook and your testers’ emails into that structure and compares rounds; you fix it up in the editor. The recipes, the method wording and every headnote are yours.
What you will use
- Shelf
- One shelf for the book, The Tuesday Braise, with a line on what the book is and who it is for.
- Research document
- One document per recipe in development, whose overview is the current version of the recipe, plus one document for the proposal itself.
- Finding
- One finding per testing round, filed as Evidence; a Decision for each thing you settle; a Question for what testing has not answered yet.
- Revisions
- Every version of the recipe in the overview, marked with who changed it, with Restore when a round goes backwards.
- Public link
- A password link on each recipe for its testers, with the round logs left out, and a separate link on the proposal for your literary agent.
- Your AI assistant
- Builds a document per recipe from your notebook, files each round from your notes and testers’ emails, and compares rounds, without touching the recipe or the headnote.
- The editor
- Where you correct what the assistant filed, edit the recipe in the overview, mark Decisions Key and write every headnote yourself.
- Look up
- Look up (⌘K) shows how often leeks turn up across the sixty recipes, and which recipes still lack a Contains line.
Method
-
1
Give your assistant the notebook
Make a shelf named for the book and write a line on what it is: “Sixty braises for weeknights, for cooks with one heavy pot.” Then give the assistant you use what you have so far: photos of the notebook pages, your draft recipe files, the testers’ emails. Ask it to make one document per recipe on that shelf, titled with the dish and its main ingredients, such as Chicken thighs braised with leeks and cider.
Each document’s overview should be the latest version of the recipe exactly as you wrote it, and each test so far a finding. Ask for a Proposal document too, with a finding per section your literary agent expects: The book, The reader, Comparable titles, Chapter outline, Sample recipes. The assistant makes the headings; the pitch is yours to write.
-
2
Fix up each recipe in the editor
Open each recipe and press Edit. Check the overview against your latest notes: yield, ingredients by weight and volume, method, and the timings you actually used. The overview is the recipe; the findings are its history. When you change the recipe, edit the overview directly. Revisions keep every earlier version, dated and marked as yours or an assistant’s.
Drag the rounds into date order, fix any test the assistant misread, and delete what does not belong. Star the recipes going into the proposal, and put the one in testing this week in Focus.
-
3
Log every test as a finding
After each test, give your assistant your notes and the testers’ replies and ask it to file the round in that recipe’s document, titled by round and date, Round 3, 11 March, as Evidence, with the same three headings every time:
- What changed: one or two changes from the last round, and why.
- What happened: times, temperatures, texture and taste, in plain words.
- Testers: what each tester reported, by code (Tester B, gas oven, Denver), never by full name.
Read the round before you plan the next one. Change one thing per round where you can; when you change two, say so.
-
4
Send testers the current version behind a password
When a recipe is ready for testers, press Share on its document, set a password and an expiry at the end of the round, and copy the link the moment it appears. From each finding’s own page, leave out the round logs, the Decisions and the headnote draft, so testers read the recipe and nothing else. Add one finding they do see, How to report back, with the questions you want answered.
Testers reply by email or your feedback form; they cannot write in the library. Their answers go into that round’s finding, by you or your assistant. For the next round, Replace the link, so last round’s testers lose access, and send the new one to this round’s. Replacing resets the expiry and the findings you left out, so set both again.
-
5
Ask your assistant to compare rounds
Ask your assistant to read two rounds of a named recipe and the overview’s revisions, and to file a comparison: what changed, what the testers reported, and where they disagree. Ask it to file that as a finding, not to edit the recipe.
An assistant is good at the bookkeeping you skip at eleven at night: noticing that the two testers who found the sauce thin both used a wider pot, or that round four quietly undid a fix from round two. Whether the braise is right is still for your palate to decide.
-
6
File the decisions
When testing settles something, file a Decision and mark it Key: “Bone-in thighs, not boneless: boneless dried out for three of four testers.” Link the rounds that decided it. A Decision is what you will point to when a copy editor asks why the recipe calls for a 5-quart pot and not a 7.
Then write the headnote yourself, as its own finding, in your own voice. Headnotes are the part of a cookbook that is most clearly yours and most clearly protected; they are also the part readers remember.
-
7
Check the manuscript before it goes out
Before the proposal goes to your literary agent, search Look up for each main ingredient. If leeks fills the list and fennel finds nothing, the book has a habit. Ask your assistant to check every recipe document on the shelf for units written two ways, oven temperatures without °C, and a missing Contains line.
Share the proposal with its own password and an expiry. When the book is under contract, read what the contract says about recipes appearing online before publication, and turn off tester links the day a round ends.
Specimen
The Tuesday BraiseChicken thighs braised with leeks and cider
3of 7
Round 3, 11 Marchless cider, lid off for the last 20 minutes
Evidence, 1 highlight, 1 note, 486 words
What changed. Cider down from 1½ cups to 1 cup (240 ml), after two testers in round 2 called the sauce sweet. Lid off for the last 20 minutes to reduce it.
What happened. In my Dutch oven at 325°F (160°C), 55 minutes covered, 20 uncovered. Thighs at 185°F (85°C) at the thickest point, well past the 165°F (74°C) minimum; the meat pulled from the bone. Sauce coated a spoon. Leeks held their shape for the first time.
Testers.
- Tester B, gas oven, Denver: “Still a little sweet. Sauce thin.” Used a 7-quart pot.
- Tester D, electric oven, Atlanta: “Right. Would make again.” Used a 5-quart pot.
- Tester F, convection, Minneapolis: skin soft, not crisp, after 20 minutes uncovered.
Contains. Milk (butter to finish).
You
Using know.sh, in the shelf The Tuesday Braise, compare rounds 2 and 3 of the chicken thighs with leeks and cider. What changed in the recipe, what did testers say each time, and is anything still unresolved? File it as a finding. Don’t touch the recipe or the headnote.
- research_list_findings7 findings in Chicken thighs braised with leeks and cider
- finding_getRead “Round 2, 2 March” and “Round 3, 11 March”
- revisions_list9 revisions of the overview since 24 February
Claude
Between rounds 2 and 3 the overview changed in two places: cider from 1½ cups to 1 cup, and “lid off for the last 20 minutes” added.
Sweetness: two of three testers in round 2 said sweet; one of three in round 3. Sauce: thin for Tester B in both rounds. B is the only tester using a 7-quart pot, which may explain it better than the cider does.
Still open: crisp skin (Tester F, both rounds) and the pot size, which the recipe does not state.
- finding_addAdded “Rounds 2 and 3 compared” to Chicken thighs braised with leeks and cider, 8
Prompts to try
-
Your assistant, connected to know.sh (Claude, ChatGPT or a local model)
Using know.sh, read every testing round in the document [recipe] on my shelf The Tuesday Braise and the revisions of its overview. Make a table of rounds: date, what changed, each tester’s verdict and their oven and pot. Then list what is still unresolved. File it as a new finding called “Rounds compared”. Do not edit the recipe or the headnote.
-
Your assistant, connected to know.sh (Claude, ChatGPT or a local model)
Using know.sh, check every recipe document on my shelf The Tuesday Braise. List any overview that writes units two ways, gives an oven temperature without Celsius, has no yield, cooks poultry or ground meat without a safe internal temperature, or lacks a Contains line. Group the list by recipe and put it in a new finding in the proposal document.
-
Your assistant, connected to know.sh (Claude, ChatGPT or a local model)
Using know.sh, tell me which recipes on my shelf The Tuesday Braise have a Decision finding marked Key and a headnote finding, and which are still missing one or the other. List them in two columns.
Variations
- Keep a bake log for the bread and pastry chapters, where a round is a single bake and the numbers matter more than the testers.
- Use Claude Code to turn the delivery schedule into a campaign: an operation per chapter with testing, headnotes and photography notes, each blocking the manuscript delivery date.
- Writing a community cookbook rather than your own? The fundraiser cookbook collects and checks recipes from many cooks.
Where it falls short
- There is no export. When the manuscript goes to your editor, you copy the recipes into the publisher’s template or your word processor; know.sh remains the record of how each recipe got there.
- Testers cannot comment on the link or fill in a form in know.sh. Their feedback reaches you by email or your own form, and you or your assistant file it.
- Reading notebook photos needs an assistant that reads images, as Claude and ChatGPT do; smaller local models read handwriting and call know.sh’s tools less reliably. Whichever you use, read what it files; Revisions shows every change.
- Photos of each test cannot be stored in the library. Keep them in your photo library, named by recipe and round, and say in the round finding where they are.
- Links are one recipe each. Twelve recipes in testing at once means twelve links to manage, each with its own password and expiry.
A note on food safety, headnotes and your publisher
Indexed under
Recipe testingTesting roundsRecipe testersHeadnotesCookbook proposalsDecisionsAllergensFood safety