I’d like to be able to group rules into named sections - and be able to name those sections. E.g. rules that add tasks, rules that have to do with approvals, etc. When you have 50 rules in a project, it’s much harder to sift through them in the right side panel.
Not a perfect solution, but in the meantime, you can manually sort your rules by dragging them into any order you prefer and use naming conventions to make them easier to find, such as:
Add Task: When task is moved to [section]
Approval: When [field a] is set to [x]
Approval: When [field b] is set to [y]
2 Likes
It became far easier for me to navigate when we became able to drag/drop to reorder rules. I reordered my rules to reflect the order they typically fire in, so I’m able to scan down to a point in the flow where I know the rule is. I am the main one responsible to create/maintain rules across several established systems and I have found that naming with the trigger and action with similar formatting across systems helps. Examples:
Form: Set Ticket ID & Add Comment
First Section = Sprint Status: On Deck
Decision Status Change > Sprint Status “On Hold”
Marked Complete > Moved to Complete
1 Like
This is what I often use too, keeping compact like your examples too, e.g.:
- New task added > Move to New
- Moved to Generate > Assign, Add subtasks
Thanks,
Larry
Hello,
We’ve built up quite a large number of rules to support our workflows and automations, and we expect to introduce many more as we continue to improve our processes. As a result, the Rules list is becoming increasingly difficult to navigate, making it harder to find, review and maintain the rule we’re looking for.
It would be really helpful to have the ability to organise rules into folders, sections, or another form of grouping. For example:
- Communication
- Workflow
- Assign
- Integrations
This would make it much easier to:
- Find and maintain existing rules
- Keep related automations together
- Reduce scrolling through long rule lists
- Make larger projects with many automations much easier to manage
Even something as simple as collapsible sections or folders would make a difference.
Does anyone know of a workaround for organising rules? If not, I think this would be a really helpful feature.
Thanks!
A current workaround would be to name them using the conventions you mentioned above.
Then, when you go into the Rules index view which shows all rules across your entire organization, you then could sort alphabetically and/or use the local search to filter the index as you type.
It may help to add the project name or some other project identifier to the rule if you have many rules that do the same things across different projects because there’s no way, currently, to filter, sort, or group the rule index by project.
I know it’s not the cleanest solution. But it’s what we’ve have for now until they add more sort, filter, group functionality to the rules index.
1 Like
Is this what you’re asking for?
If so, click its title to scroll to the top and vote by clicking the Vote button at the top-left.
If you’d like me to merge this topic into that one, just let me know.
Thanks,
Larry
1 Like
Yes please, this is the same
1 Like
Thanks; done!
I run Asana governance for a company across a few divisions, and we hit this exact wall. The Rules index tells you a rule exists and who created it, but not necessarily who owns it - those aren’t always the same person, especially once a rule outlives its original creator’s role. So we started logging rules the same way we log SOPs: a tracking project with fields for Owner, Review Cadence, Last Reviewed, and a quick version/change note - linked back to the actual rule by name, and sometimes to an associated document that explains the full workflow purpose behind it. We also use a sequential numbering system within the project list so it’s quick to scan.
A big part of why this matters for us: I’m often building these projects for people who aren’t deeply familiar with Asana rules and may not know how to manipulate or cross-reference them. Having a summary layer means they can actually understand why one thing leads to another when they create a task and watch the automations fire - instead of it feeling like a black box.
It’s manual, and honestly kind of annoying to maintain by hand. But it means rules get the same “someone actually checked this still makes sense” treatment as our other governed docs, instead of just piling up until nobody remembers why half of them exist.
Sections would still be the real fix for navigation. But if Asana’s looking at this, I’d love to see grouping paired with the ability to build out custom fields directly on rules - Owner, Review Cadence, Last Reviewed - so that audit trail lives natively instead of in a shadow tracking project. Right now rules are organized (sort of) but not really auditable.