From 0f01e673afc4ccc2e692a9fb485955910930be40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: =?UTF-8?q?=E3=82=8B=E3=81=BF=E3=81=AA=E3=83=BC=E5=85=88=E7=94=9F?= Date: Sun, 31 May 2026 02:07:56 +0900 Subject: [PATCH] =?UTF-8?q?=E3=83=81=E3=82=A7=E3=83=83=E3=82=AF=E3=83=9D?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=82=A4=E3=83=B3=E3=83=88=E3=83=AC=E3=83=93=E3=83=A5=E3=83=BC?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=81=AE=E3=83=AF=E3=83=BC=E3=82=AF=E3=83=95=E3=83=AD=E3=83=BC?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=82=92=E6=98=8E=E7=A2=BA=E5=8C=96=E3=81=97=E3=80=81=E3=83=97?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=83=AD=E3=82=BB=E3=82=B9=E3=82=92=E7=B9=B0=E3=82=8A=E8=BF=94?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=81=97=E5=8F=AF=E8=83=BD=E3=81=AB=E3=81=99=E3=82=8B=E3=81=9F?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=82=81=E3=81=AE=E5=9F=BA=E6=9C=AC=E7=9A=84=E3=81=AA=E3=82=A2?= =?UTF-8?q?=E3=82=A4=E3=83=87=E3=82=A2=E3=82=92=E8=BF=BD=E5=8A=A0?= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit --- doc/HOW_TO_USE.md | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++--------------- 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/HOW_TO_USE.md b/doc/HOW_TO_USE.md index e1a958c..79dd797 100644 --- a/doc/HOW_TO_USE.md +++ b/doc/HOW_TO_USE.md @@ -122,23 +122,30 @@ Deletion is always handled by the generated script, so you can review and confir ## Checkpoint review as a workflow -Checkpoints are not just files. -Each model has its own strengths, weaknesses, habits, and moments where it works surprisingly well. +Checkpoints are not just files. -However, reviewing checkpoints has often been a vague process: -generate a few images, keep some impressions in memory, maybe rename a file, maybe delete something later. +Each model has its own strengths, weaknesses, habits, and moments where it works unexpectedly well. -Checkpoint Handpicker Suite was designed to make that process more explicit and repeatable. +However, checkpoint review often tends to be vague: -The idea is simple: +- generate a few images +- remember a rough impression +- search for outputs later by filename +- hesitate to delete anything because the decision feels risky -- checkpoints should be easy to cycle through -- interesting checkpoints should be easy to test again -- review results should be recorded as lightweight status tags -- deletion should be reserved first, not executed immediately -- reviewed statuses should be usable as filters for future cycling -- checkpoint selection should be resolved at execution time, so refreshes and status changes can be reflected without restarting ComfyUI -- review should be possible both during generation and from generated output images in another tab +ComfyUI-CheckpointHandpickerSuite was designed to make this process more explicit and repeatable. -In other words, this suite is not only a set of nodes. -It is an attempt to provide a practical workflow for discovering, reviewing, revisiting, and safely cleaning up checkpoints. \ No newline at end of file +The basic ideas are: + +1. You need checkpoint cycling before you can efficiently gather review targets. +2. Interesting checkpoints should be easy to revisit by inserting them into the next jobs. +3. Statuses should stay simple: `favorite`, `nice`, `keep`, `delete`, or `none`. +4. `delete` should mean delete reservation, not immediate physical deletion. +5. Review statuses should be usable as filters for future cycling. +6. To make those filters meaningful, checkpoint selection should be resolved at execution time, not when the job is queued. +7. Execution-time resolution makes it possible to follow checkpoint refreshes and status changes without restarting ComfyUI. +8. Review should be possible both during generation and from generated output images in another tab. + +In other words, this suite is not only a set of nodes. + +It is a practical proposal for discovering, testing, reviewing, revisiting, and safely cleaning up checkpoints in checkpoint-heavy ComfyUI workflows. \ No newline at end of file