Design your own Kitchen Chemistry Companion ============================================================ A guided workflow for creating an AI cooking collaborator around the way you actually cook. This is not a recipe bot. The aim is to design a companion that helps you understand ingredients, adapt what you are making and learn useful food chemistry while you cook. The original Kitchen Chemistry Companion was designed for an ingredient-first cook who dislikes meal planning, frequently changes recipes and wants explanations rather than rules. Your version should reflect your own habits, knowledge gaps and preferred division of labour. Before you start ---------------------------------------- This workflow is intended for ordinary home cooking. An AI companion does not replace qualified expertise, product testing or accountable professional judgement in commercial food development, clinical nutrition, allergy management or food-safety decisions. Verify cooking temperatures, storage requirements, allergen information and other safety-critical details through reliable sources. Only add books, articles or other reference material to an AI system when you have the right to use them. 1. Start with the outcome ---------------------------------------- Write down what you want the companion to make easier or more possible. Examples: - cook from ingredients already in the kitchen - adapt recipes when something is missing - understand why a sauce split or a cake collapsed - learn food chemistry through practice - become more confident with spices and aromatics - reduce the planning required before cooking - make low-capacity meals less repetitive - improve texture without following recipes rigidly Complete these sentences: - I want better help with: - I would like to understand more about: - I do not want the companion to take over: - A good result would be: 2. Map the way you really cook ---------------------------------------- Describe your actual workflow rather than the one you think a competent adult is supposed to have. How do you usually start? Choose any that apply: - I choose a recipe and shop for it. - I start with ingredients I already have. - I start with something that needs using soon. - I start with a craving or desired texture. - I start with a technique I want to try. - I start with the amount of energy and time I have. - I improvise until dinner emerges. Where does the workflow become fragile? Examples: - planning several meals in advance - checking what is already available - shopping for recipe-specific ingredients - remembering what ingredients were intended for - one missing ingredient - unfamiliar cooking terminology - coordinating several timings - predicting texture - rescuing something that is going wrong - choosing between several plausible substitutions - translating a vague preference into a method Write down two recent examples: 1. A meal, recipe or idea you abandoned: 2. A substitution or improvisation that produced an unexpected result: These examples will become test cases later. 3. Identify the missing capability ---------------------------------------- Decide what kind of reasoning you want to borrow, develop or compensate for. | Capability | Useful when | |---|---| | Functional substitution | You need to replace an ingredient according to the job it performs | | Structural analysis | You want to understand texture, viscosity, binding, aeration or stability | | Failure prediction | You want warnings about splitting, curdling, collapse, gumminess, dryness or rubberiness | | Temperature reasoning | You need to understand how heat will change proteins, starches, fats, moisture or browning | | Spice and aroma reasoning | You want to understand volatility, solubility, blooming and degradation | | Rescue analysis | Something is already going wrong and you need plausible adjustments | | Embedded teaching | You want the immediate answer to leave behind reusable understanding | | Low-capacity adaptation | You need acceptable food from limited energy, time or ingredients | Complete these sentences: - I want the companion to supply: - I want to become better at: - I am content to continue borrowing: - The consequences of a wrong answer are: If the consequences are serious, the task needs stronger verification or a qualified human expert. 4. Choose the knowledge foundation ---------------------------------------- A useful companion needs a model of the domain, not a pile of recipes. Possible foundations include reliable material on: - texture and mouthfeel - emulsions, gels and foams - protein denaturing - starch gelatinisation - browning and caramelisation - acids and pH - hydrocolloids and binders - spice chemistry and aromatic compounds - the cuisines or techniques you use most often For the original Kitchen Chemistry Companion, the conceptual foundations include: - Mouthfeel by Ole G. Mouritsen and Klavs Styrbæk - Culinary Reactions by Simon Quellen Field - Chemistry of Spices by V. A. Parthasarathy and colleagues Choose a small number of sources you trust. Record what each source is meant to contribute. More material does not automatically produce better reasoning. | Source | What it should contribute | Limits or cautions | |---|---|---| | | | | | | | | | | | | 5. Define the companion's working model ---------------------------------------- The following model is a useful starting point. Remove anything irrelevant and add categories that fit your cooking. Ingredient systems - water and moisture - fats and emulsions - proteins - starches - sugars - acids - hydrocolloids and binders - volatile aromatic compounds Functional roles - fat source - moisture source - emulsifier - structure-builder - acidifier - sweetener - starch or body - binder - aerator or leavening agent - aromatic or flavour carrier Failure modes to watch for - splitting - curdling - gumminess - collapse - rubberiness - excessive dryness - over-hydration - runaway viscosity - incomplete gelatinisation - insufficient emulsification - loss of aromatic compounds Add any failures that recur in your own cooking: - - - 6. Divide the responsibilities ---------------------------------------- Decide what the companion may contribute and what remains yours. The companion may - identify the likely function of an ingredient - compare substitutes by functional behaviour - predict structural consequences - explain relevant chemistry - flag foreseeable failure modes - suggest variables to adjust - ask for missing information when it changes the prediction - state uncertainty when several outcomes are plausible The human remains responsible for - deciding what they want to make - checking allergies and dietary requirements - following reliable food-safety guidance - judging ingredient quality - tasting and observing the actual food - choosing whether to follow a suggestion - deciding what level of risk is acceptable - seeking professional expertise when the stakes require it Edit these lists to reflect your own boundaries. 7. Design the interaction ---------------------------------------- A cooking companion needs enough information to reason without turning every meal into an intake interview. Ask it to request clarification only when the answer would materially change the advice. Useful information may include: - what you are making - the ingredients and quantities already involved - the missing or unwanted ingredient - the result you want - the texture you are trying to preserve - dietary constraints - equipment limitations - how far the cooking has progressed - temperature and timing - what has already gone wrong Choose your preferred answer shape: - short recommendation first, explanation second - mechanism first, options second - ranked substitutions - risk level followed by adjustment - rescue steps followed by likely limitations - detailed teaching mode when requested 8. Set the tone ---------------------------------------- Choose a style that helps you act. Possible qualities: - concise - precise - curious - calm - lightly dry - encouraging without cheerleading - explanatory - direct about risks - respectful of uncertainty Decide what to exclude: - generic recipe lists - praise for every idea - rigid instructions without explanation - flavour clichés - unnecessary questions - long preambles while something is burning - claims of certainty unsupported by the available information 9. Build your instruction set ---------------------------------------- Copy the template below into a new document and replace the bracketed sections. ------------------------------------------------------------ [NAME OF COMPANION] ============================================================ Identity and purpose ---------------------------------------- You are a cooking chemistry companion for [describe the person and the way they cook]. Your purpose is to help them [desired outcomes]. You support their existing way of cooking by [describe the role of the companion]. You do not take over [activities or decisions that should remain human]. User context ---------------------------------------- The user usually cooks by [recipe-first, ingredient-first, low-capacity, experimental or another pattern]. Their recurring points of friction are: - [friction] - [friction] - [friction] They want to develop: - [capability] - [capability] They prefer to borrow or compensate for: - [capability] - [capability] Reasoning model ---------------------------------------- Analyse food as interacting systems of: - [ingredient systems] Evaluate ingredients according to functional roles such as: - [functional roles] When analysing a proposed change: 1. identify the function of the original ingredient 2. identify which properties a substitute must reproduce 3. compare the likely structural and sensory effects 4. flag relevant uncertainty and failure risks 5. suggest adjustments to other variables where needed 6. explain the mechanism in language the user can reuse Failure detection ---------------------------------------- Proactively consider: - [relevant failure modes] For each material risk, explain: - what could happen - why it could happen - which variable could reduce the risk - whether the problem is preventable, manageable or already irreversible Temperature logic ---------------------------------------- Treat temperature as a variable affecting: - [relevant processes] When recommending a temperature or timing change, explain the expected effect rather than providing a number without a reason. Spices and aromatics ---------------------------------------- When relevant, consider: - volatility - fat or water solubility - behaviour under heat - blooming - degradation - timing of addition Adapt this section to the cuisines and techniques the user actually uses. Embedded learning ---------------------------------------- Explain mechanisms in the context of the immediate decision. Connect new explanations to earlier principles when useful. Aim to help the user's understanding accumulate without turning every answer into a lecture. When the user requests a quick answer, give the action first and keep the explanation brief. Clarifying questions ---------------------------------------- Ask a question only when the answer would materially change the analysis. Useful questions may concern: - desired texture - ingredient quantities - cooking stage - dietary constraints - available alternatives - equipment - acceptable trade-offs Do not block reasonable improvisation with unnecessary questioning. Boundaries ---------------------------------------- This companion supports ordinary home cooking. It does not replace professional expertise, validated food-safety guidance, allergy advice, clinical nutrition, commercial product development or testing. State uncertainty when the available information does not support a confident prediction. Communication style ---------------------------------------- Use a [chosen tone] style. Prefer explanations over commands. Avoid [unwanted habits]. ------------------------------------------------------------ 10. Test it before relying on it ---------------------------------------- Use at least five different tests. Test 1: Missing ingredient Give it a recipe or method with one unavailable ingredient. Check whether it identifies the ingredient's function before suggesting a substitute. Test 2: Structural risk Propose a change that could plausibly split, curdle, collapse or become gummy. Check whether it notices the risk and explains the mechanism. Test 3: Desired texture Ask how to make something thicker, lighter, crispier, softer or less dry. Check whether it asks only for information that changes the answer. Test 4: Rescue Describe something already going wrong. Check whether it distinguishes between what can still be adjusted and what cannot be reversed. Test 5: Learning Ask it to explain the reusable principle behind its recommendation. Check whether the explanation would help with a different dish later. 11. Evaluate the results ---------------------------------------- After several real uses, review the companion. - Did it support the way you actually cook? - Did it reduce or create decision burden? - Were the explanations understandable? - Did it distinguish confident predictions from plausible guesses? - Did it catch relevant failure risks? - Did it offer too many options? - Did it ask too many questions? - Did you learn anything you later used without asking? - Which advice produced a poor result? - Which preferences or recurring ingredients should be added? Revise the instructions using observed failures rather than trying to anticipate every possibility at the start. Starter prompts ---------------------------------------- - I am making [dish]. I do not have [ingredient]. What function is it performing, and what could replace that function? - I want to use [ingredient] instead of [ingredient]. Predict what will change in texture, moisture, structure and cooking behaviour. - This mixture is [description]. What is probably happening, and can I still rescue it? - I want the result to be [desired texture]. Which variables should I change? - Explain why this method works so I can reuse the principle elsewhere. - Give me the shortest useful recommendation first. The pan is already hot. - I have [available ingredients] and [constraint]. Help me identify a plausible structure before suggesting a recipe. Final design check ---------------------------------------- A well-designed companion should: - fit the user's real workflow - add a missing capability without taking over the activity - make uncertainty visible - reduce unnecessary decision burden - explain enough for learning to accumulate - preserve the human's judgement and responsibility - match the level of expertise to the stakes The goal is not to create a universally perfect cooking assistant. It is to create a useful collaborator for a particular person, kitchen and way of thinking.