Claude Code for creative ops: automating the unglamorous parts
Practical examples of how we use Claude Code to handle asset admin, copy variants, QA checks and reporting, and how we keep a human in charge of everything that matters.
Last year we wrote about setting up Claude Code and MCP to support our creative team. Since then the setup has become part of how we work every day, and the most valuable uses have turned out to be the least exciting ones. This is a practical look at what we actually hand to it now, and the rules we keep.
Asset intake and organisation
Creative teams drown in files. Creator deliveries arrive with random names, in different formats and in shared folders that never quite get organised.
We have a standard workflow for this. Claude Code reads a new delivery, renames each file to our naming convention (brand, concept, creator, format, version), sorts it into the right folder and logs it in the asset tracker. It flags anything that doesn’t meet basic specs, such as the wrong aspect ratio, a resolution that’s too low, or audio that’s missing. What used to be a tedious hour each week now takes minutes to review.
Batch production tasks
Many production jobs are repetitive. Cut a video to several lengths, export each in three aspect ratios, burn in subtitles, add an end card. Claude Code writes and runs the scripts for this using standard tools like ffmpeg, and we check the outputs. When requirements change, we describe the change and it updates the script.
Copy variants within the rules
For each winning concept, we need many variations of hooks, headlines and primary text, all within platform character limits and the brand’s approved claims. We’ve packaged our brand voice, claims list and formatting rules into reusable skills that Claude Code loads when the task calls for them. It writes variants straight into a review sheet, tagged by concept and angle. A strategist approves, edits or rejects each line before anything ships.
QA before launch
Before an ad goes live, a checklist runs:
- Does the copy use only approved claims?
- Is text inside each placement’s safe zones?
- Are captions present and correctly timed?
- Does the landing page link work and match the offer in the ad?
- Is the naming consistent, so reporting will group it correctly?
Claude Code runs the parts of this that can be checked automatically and produces a short report. People handle the judgement calls.
Landing page variants
When we test an offer or angle, the landing page usually needs a matching version. With a well-structured page template, Claude Code can produce a variant with a new headline, a reordered benefits section and a different hero image, ready for review in a preview link. It’s much faster than starting each one from scratch, and it keeps pages consistent with the brand.
Weekly reporting
On Monday mornings it pulls performance data through MCP, groups results by concept rather than by individual ad, compares them against the previous weeks, and drafts a summary: what’s working, what’s fatiguing, what we learned and what to brief next. The team reads it, argues with it, and turns it into the week’s plan. The test log updates automatically.
The rules we keep
As these tools take on more, the guardrails matter more.
- Approval before anything goes live. No ad, page or email is published without a person signing off.
- Least access. The agent gets only the permissions a task needs. Write access to live ad accounts stays with people.
- Everything is tracked. Files and scripts live in version control, so every change is visible and reversible.
- Real proof only. The claims list is the boundary. Nothing is invented.
The result
None of these tasks is impressive on its own. Together, they hand back a large share of the team’s week, and that time goes into the work that actually moves results: better ideas, better briefs, sharper edits and more conversations with customers. That’s the version of AI in creative work we believe in. Not a replacement for taste, but relief from everything that gets in its way.