Share your best AI workflow. We could show it to 2M+ people.

I built a model dispatcher to avoid paying premium usage for simple tasks. In Claude, every task runs on the model used by the current session, so a two-line formatting fix can consume the same level of model capacity as a difficult strategic problem. I had Claude build a scoring system that evaluates each task across six dimensions: required reasoning, the amount of context, the importance of craft or nuance, whether speed is the priority, the number of agentic parts involved, and the potential consequences if something goes wrong. Based on the score, it recommends a model—from a light, fast option for rote work to the most capable option for genuinely difficult tasks—and suggests how much effort that model should apply. The key design choice is that the dispatcher never spends anything automatically. Scoring is free and instant, while sending the task to a model through the API costs real money. Dispatching therefore requires an explicit confirmation flag every time. Nothing runs without me saying go. The payoff is not dramatic from day to day. It comes from many small savings that add up, along with a habit shift: I check the router before sending a task instead of wondering afterward why a simple request cost more than it should have. Step-by-step: 1. I identified the problem: every task in a Claude session uses the current model, even when the task is simple. 2. I had Claude build a scoring system that evaluates each task across six dimensions: reasoning, context, craft or nuance, speed, agentic complexity, and the potential consequences of failure. 3. I used the score to recommend an appropriate model, from a light and fast model for rote work to the heaviest model for genuinely difficult tasks. 4. I included a recommendation for how much effort the selected model should apply. 5. I kept scoring free and separate from dispatching, since sending a task through the API costs money. 6. I required an explicit confirmation flag before dispatching any task, so nothing runs automatically. 7. I check the router before sending tasks and benefit from small savings that accumulate over time.

We built an evidence-driven Agentic AI workflow for extracting trustworthy investment intelligence from messy real-estate documents. The problem wasn't simply getting an LLM to read PDFs. Real-estate investment information can be distributed across reports, underwriting documents, valuation materials, rent schedules, spreadsheets, tables, and multiple versions of the same information. A metric such as IRR can also appear several times with different scenarios, dates, classifications, or meanings. Instead of building another "chat with your documents" agent, we designed a controlled agentic workflow around one principle: Don't make the agent smarter. Make the workflow harder to fool. Step-by-step: 1. I start with the business question. The agent receives a request for a specific investment metric for an asset and determines the business context instead of immediately searching for matching words. 2. I resolve the entity by normalizing the asset or entity using aliases, identifiers, relationships, and hierarchy information. This prevents ambiguous names from sending retrieval in the wrong direction. 3. I build a metric-specific plan using governed definitions for important metrics. A definition can include the metric's business meaning, terminology, preferred sources, classifier information, negative cues, and extraction rules. The agent starts with a contextualized retrieval and extraction plan rather than a vague instruction such as "find IRR." 4. I discover the right documents by narrowing candidate source documents with metadata and path-level information before searching the entire corpus semantically. The goal is: Find the right document before finding the right chunk. 5. I retrieve evidence within the selected documents. Only when scoped retrieval is insufficient does the workflow fall back to broader semantic retrieval, keeping the agent's search controlled and auditable. 6. I inspect structured information when necessary. Important investment information frequently lives in tables rather than paragraphs, so the workflow escalates to table-aware processing to inspect rows, columns, schedules, and structured financial evidence. 7. I extract a structured result instead of a long free-form answer. The result preserves the metric, value, unit or context, source document, page or location, and citation information. 8. I validate the evidence by checking the extracted value against the metric definition and relevant validation rules. Depending on the metric, these checks can include unit, scenario, chronology, plausibility, and table-to-text consistency. 9. I resolve conflicts explicitly. If multiple plausible values are found, the agent does not simply select the first result. The workflow applies rules for source precedence, chronology, scenario classification, and evidence strength. If a conflict cannot be safely resolved, the ambiguity is preserved rather than hidden. 10. I produce an evidence-backed result containing the selected metric, supporting evidence, context, and lineage. The result can then become a structured business artifact for downstream analytics, reporting, or decision-support workflows. This is not simply Question → RAG → Answer. The workflow is Question → Understand → Ground → Plan → Retrieve → Inspect → Extract → Validate → Resolve → Evidence-backed output. Retrieval is one capability inside the workflow. The agent coordinates the process, chooses the appropriate tools, follows the retrieval policy, handles structured evidence, and moves the result through validation and resolution. The biggest improvement did not come from giving the model more freedom. It came from giving the model better boundaries, better domain knowledge, better tools, and explicit decision rules. This pattern can be applied beyond real estate to financial research, insurance, compliance, legal documents, due diligence, and other enterprise workflows where an answer needs to be not only useful, but defensible and traceable.

I built Shots2Points, a golf scoring app for iPhone and Android, using AI as my development partner. The idea came from organising and playing in golf society events. Stableford scoring itself isn’t particularly complicated, but running an event can be. Organisers have to prepare groups, handicaps, and courses; collect scores from different groups; calculate results; manage withdrawals and ties; and eventually produce a leaderboard. I wanted to simplify that process while also providing an easy scoring app for ordinary casual rounds. The unusual part is how I built it. I’m not a professional software developer, and I don’t have a development team. I started by describing what I wanted the app to do to AI and gradually turned the idea into a working product. My workflow evolved into this cycle: idea → discussion → specification → implementation → real-world test → refinement. I repeat it for each feature. Step-by-step: 1. I define the problem and user experience with ChatGPT. I discuss ideas, challenge assumptions, work through workflows, and decide how a feature should behave before changing the code. 2. Once the behaviour is clear, I turn the idea into an implementation task. I use AI to specify exactly what needs to change, including edge cases and how the new feature should interact with existing functionality. 3. I build and inspect the code with Cursor. Cursor works directly with the project codebase, allowing AI to investigate existing code, implement changes, and report exactly what it changed. I test the result rather than simply accepting AI-generated code. 4. I test development versions on real iOS and Android devices. I follow the actual user journey, take screenshots or capture errors when something isn’t right, and bring those results back into the AI workflow. 5. I use AI to diagnose problems, make another targeted change, and test again. The result is a real cross-platform application rather than a prototype. Shots2Points includes free casual Stableford scoring and an Event Mode designed for golf societies and groups. Organisers can create events, import players, allocate groups, and allow each group to enter scores while everyone follows a live leaderboard. Building the app has required much more than generating code. AI has helped me work through database design, APIs, authentication, in-app purchases, App Store and Google Play requirements, debugging, user-interface decisions, testing, and release management. The biggest lesson for me has been that AI doesn’t remove the need to understand the problem or make decisions. It gives one person access to capabilities that would traditionally have required several different specialists. I provide the product knowledge, requirements, judgement, and testing; AI provides much of the technical capability and an extraordinarily fast feedback loop. That combination allowed me to take a personal idea for improving golf scoring and event management and turn it into a functioning iOS and Android product.

I run operations for my husband’s residential architecture firm, and I have no coding background. After every site visit, dozens of photos landed in Google Drive named `IMG_8834.JPG`. Renaming and filing them took about an hour per visit, when it happened at all. When it didn’t, the photos sat unnamed and unfindable. For an architecture firm, that creates a professional liability gap because the photos document site conditions on a specific date, as well as lost portfolio material and a hole in the firm’s permanent project archive. I solved this by building a Claude skill: a saved set of instructions that runs the same way every time with one command. I trained it to examine each photo through the eye of a residential architect, describe what the image actually shows using our professional vocabulary, and rename the file in a consistent format. `IMG_8834.JPG` becomes `2026-07-17_03_side-elevation-porch-brick-piers.JPG`—searchable, legible, and filed. Because it’s a skill rather than a one-off chat, it’s a file I can hand to anyone in the office. Everyone runs the same process and gets identical output. Step-by-step: 1. I gathered the raw photos into one “unsorted” folder in Google Drive. 2. In Claude’s desktop app, I used Cowork mode, which handles actual files, and connected only that folder—not my whole Drive. This is the safety practice I’d urge anyone to follow: the skill can see and touch only what you connect, so connect the narrowest folder that does the job. 3. I created a skill that tells Claude to read each photo, identify what it shows using the industry’s vocabulary, and rename each file in a standard format. I wrote mine for residential architecture, but the approach also works for real estate, inspections, insurance, and other field work. My format is `date_sequence_description`. 4. I ran the skill with one command, and Claude worked through the folder photo by photo. 5. The renamed photos were filed into a dated site-visit folder, ready to reference by number in reports. 6. I handed the skill file to teammates so they could run it on their machines and get the same result. One caveat for anyone using this on business files: check your client confidentiality obligations and your AI vendor’s data policy before pointing any tool at project files. We did. I wrote up the full build, including how to decide when something should be a skill versus a regular Claude conversation, at The 2040 Studio: https://the2040studio.substack.com/p/every-img_8834jpg-is-snitching-on

I wanted a way to turn my meeting and call notes into a to-do list while also surfacing the themes I had been discussing over the weeks and months. That helps me see where my priorities really lie and who I have been discussing them with. I use the free Granola app to record meetings. Claude Code then connects through MCP, pulls in each meeting summary, and creates a web page that runs on my machine. The workflow also creates an `.md` file for each meeting using a standard set of formatting instructions. Now I can track actions, review recurring themes, and stay on top of my to-do list. Step-by-step: 1. I record my meetings and calls in the free Granola app. 2. I use Claude Code to connect through MCP and pull in the meeting summaries. 3. Claude Code creates an `.md` file for each meeting using a standard set of formatting instructions. 4. It creates a web page that runs on my machine and organizes the meeting information into a to-do list and themes. 5. I use the page to track actions, review themes over time, and stay on top of my to-do list.

I had a bad workplace experience, so I built Doris: a saucy but loving anonymous AI aunt who remembers the tea, protects storytellers, and warns others. I built Spill Tea with Doris, an anonymous AI workplace confessional for conversations people cannot really have on LinkedIn: the bad manager, the inexplicable reorg, the coworker who somehow survives every layoff, and the meeting that should probably be entered into evidence. Doris does something more interesting than simply listen. She remembers the tea—and, carefully, spills it. The problem I wanted to solve was not really “chat with an AI.” Most AI conversations are disposable, but workplace stories are not. They accumulate companies, people, reorganizations, layoffs, recurring behaviors, management decisions, and institutional weirdness. At the same time, people are understandably reluctant to talk openly about their employers because a sufficiently specific story can identify its author. I designed Doris around a different idea: retain the knowledge without retaining the storyteller’s identity. Someone visits [spillteawithdoris.com](https://spillteawithdoris.com) and tells Doris what happened at work. The application is built in Next.js and deployed through Vercel. The conversation goes to an AI model with Doris’s personality and behavioral rules. Redis handles temporary conversational context, while Neon Postgres and Prisma maintain the structured, longer-lived pieces of the story—companies, people, events, and their relationships. Rather than treating every conversation as one giant transcript, the application extracts useful information and connects it to the larger story of a company. That creates the second half of the experience. When another visitor asks Doris, “Have you heard anything about working at Company X?”, she can draw upon what previous visitors have told her. But she does not simply retrieve someone’s confession and repeat it. The system separates what is useful about a story from what could identify the person who told it. Names, exact teams, precise dates, unusual job titles, and other unnecessarily identifying details do not need to travel with the underlying observation. Doris can instead recognize that she has heard several stories involving reorganizations, unusual management turnover, or a particular cultural complaint. Then Doris tells the story herself, in Doris’s voice. She might say that she’s “heard some tea” about a company, explain the general pattern, distinguish something she’s heard once from something that appears repeatedly, and avoid pretending anonymous reports are established facts. Visitors get useful institutional memory without being handed the breadcrumbs needed to identify an individual employee. Public information can provide a second layer of context. If appropriate, Doris can search for publicly available information about a company and compare it with what people have privately described. Those sources remain conceptually separate: what Doris can verify publicly, what Doris has heard privately, and what Doris herself infers should never become the same thing. The result is deliberately a little strange. It is an anti-LinkedIn. LinkedIn is where thousands of individual experiences are polished until every company sounds wonderful and every departure is an exciting new chapter. Doris works in the opposite direction. One anonymous story may just be a story. Ten people independently telling Doris versions of the same story start to describe a workplace. And Doris remembers. She just doesn’t need to remember who told her. Step-by-step: 1. I built a Next.js application and deployed it through Vercel at spillteawithdoris.com. 2. I defined Doris’s personality and behavioral rules for the AI model. 3. I added Redis to manage temporary conversational context. 4. I created a Neon Postgres database and used Prisma to model Company, Person, Story, and Event relationships. 5. I built an extraction layer that converts conversations into structured observations, removes unnecessary identifying information, and associates the knowledge with the appropriate company. 6. I built retrieval so Doris can find relevant prior observations when someone asks about a company. 7. I had the AI synthesize those observations in Doris’s voice instead of quoting or exposing the original submissions. 8. When appropriate, I let Doris search publicly available company information while keeping public sources, private reports, and Doris’s inferences conceptually separate.

I use Claude Cowork and Meta MCP to map my existing ad creative data and find winning combinations. Once the data is mapped, I can usually identify one concept that wins more often than the others, has absorbed more spend, and still maintains an efficient CPA. That is the winning concept, and it is where I should focus 60% to 80% of my production time. Step-by-step: 1. I connect Claude Cowork to Meta MCP and Google Drive. 2. I place the brief for every ad I published in the past 365 days into one Google Drive folder. Each brief includes the script, format, offer, and persona it was written for. 3. I prompt Claude to work through the Drive folder and build a spreadsheet tagging every ad by persona, angle, offer, and format. 4. I prompt Claude to pull each ad’s spend and CPA through Meta MCP and add those metrics to the spreadsheet. 5. I ask Claude to turn the spreadsheet into a flowchart in which persona branches into angle, angle branches into offer, and offer branches into format. Each branch includes its spend and CPA. After the data is mapped, I use the flowchart to identify the winning concept and prioritize it in production.

I own a rental property where a water leak has occurred roughly every year or two. The leak typically runs for weeks before the water utility detects usage above its threshold. Because billing cycles last three months, the utility may notify me weeks or months after the problem begins. By then, the leak can have produced a bill more than $1,000 higher than the usual $100–$300 amount. The utility offers a one-time, per-account waiver for accidental leak overages. After using that waiver the first time, later incidents are entirely out of pocket. The utility also cannot notify me sooner than when usage exceeds 25,000 gallons during a billing cycle, which moves the account into a quadruple-rate tier for the rest of that cycle. I repeatedly asked whether they could provide an immediate alert when a user-set or company-set daily usage threshold was exceeded, but they said they had no system or solution for it. I tried checking my usage manually every day, but after weeks or months of normal readings, it was easy to become complacent or forget. After receiving another $1,300-plus bill, I asked ChatGPT whether I could automate the process of logging into my utility account, checking usage daily, and emailing me about the prior day’s usage or an overage. ChatGPT suggested several options, including paid AI-agent tools and a free script running on my own hardware. I wanted a completely free, cloud-based solution that would not require my computer to stay on, so I compared the paid options, including Google Spark, with a GitHub-based system. GitHub apparently includes 2,000 minutes of script runtime per month, while my system was estimated to use about 100 minutes. I spent part of a day asking ChatGPT questions, copy-pasting code into GitHub, and refining it. I now have a cloud-based system that logs into my water utility account, checks daily usage, emails me when my daily or seven-day-average thresholds are exceeded, and adds each day’s usage to an Excel spreadsheet for ongoing history. I have verified that it works, and it is set up to keep running and sending alerts without ongoing cost. I had never coded before. The system uses Python, GitHub Actions/YAML, Playwright, pandas, openpyxl, Excel, and Gmail for email alerts. Excel and Gmail were the only tools in that list I had used previously. If I want to change an alert threshold or another setting, I can log into GitHub and ask ChatGPT for the relevant code adjustment. I also added a second rental property in the same city that uses the same water utility. Replicating the process for that property required only a small amount of additional code and took almost no time. I now have a perpetually self-updating, cloud-based water-usage database with daily email alerts for both rental properties, at zero ongoing cost.

Today, I wanted to see how far an AI agent could go if I gave it a real business instead of a predefined automation. I entered binayah.com into Awish.ai. Binayah is a real estate company, and instead of telling Awish.ai exactly what workflow to build, I asked it to analyze the business first and find an automation opportunity. It suggested a customer acquisition funnel, which I reviewed and approved. Around 10 minutes later, the automation was ready. Step-by-step: 1. I entered binayah.com into Awish.ai. 2. Awish.ai agents analyzed the website and how the business operates. 3. Awish.ai identified customer acquisition as an area that could be automated. 4. It suggested a funnel designed to capture and qualify potential leads. 5. I reviewed the suggestion and approved it. 6. Awish.ai created the workflow and connected the required steps. 7. The funnel was ready to use in around 10 minutes. What I find most interesting is that I didn’t start by designing a workflow. The system first understood the business, found an opportunity, suggested what should be automated, and built it only after I approved. That feels much closer to having an automation consultant inside the product than using a traditional workflow builder.

I was tired of opening Spotlight every time I wanted to switch apps. The search results would move around, I would occasionally open the wrong app, and those few wasted seconds kept adding up throughout the day. Instead of memorizing a collection of unrelated hotkeys, I used ChatGPT Work to design and build a personalized shortcut system in Apple Shortcuts. The shortcuts can open individual apps, jump directly into specific Safari or Chrome profiles, or launch an entire work mode with one keystroke. For example, a recording shortcut could open your microphone, camera, recording software, and notes. An analytics shortcut could open all the dashboards you check each week. Step-by-step: 1. I opened the ChatGPT desktop app, started a new chat, and switched to Work mode. 2. I asked ChatGPT to plan shortcuts around my real workflow: Based on what you know about me and my workflow, suggest 10 time-saving hotkeys we can set up in Apple Shortcuts. I’m interested in opening specific apps and profiles based on what I need them for or what mode of work I’m going into. 3. I told it which apps, browser profiles, URLs, and work modes I use most. 4. I narrowed the list before making any changes by keeping the highest-frequency shortcuts and avoiding macOS or app conflicts. 5. In ChatGPT, I went to Settings → Computer Use and turned on Any App. 6. I gave ChatGPT the approved list and clearly limited its scope: Set these up in Apple Shortcuts. Do not change anything outside this list. Test each shortcut. 7. I opened All Shortcuts in Apple Shortcuts and ran each one manually. I used Quick Actions to add or change its keyboard shortcut. I like Control + Option because it is less likely to conflict with existing Mac commands. 8. I tested every shortcut while working in another app, checking that it opened the correct app, account, browser profile, or collection of tools before building more. 9. Once everything worked, I asked ChatGPT to create my reference: Write me a one-page cheat sheet of all the shortcuts you set up, where they live, and what’s left to do. The result is a personal shortcut system built around how I actually work, plus a one-page cheat sheet so I don’t have to memorize everything immediately. For the complete walkthrough, exact prompts, screenshots, and setup instructions, follow my full Rundown University guide: Use ChatGPT to Build a Custom Mac Shortcut System. Tools used: ChatGPT Work, Apple Shortcuts Industry: Cross-industry Tags: #chatgptwork #appleshortcuts #macautomation #productivity #workflowautomation

I spent twenty years producing documentary and nonfiction films, all of it the expensive way: crews, schedules, financing, and commissioners saying no. I'm proud of much of that work, and I still think about the films that never got made because the money wasn't there. Generative video pulled me in, but not for the reason people assume. It wasn't the speed or the cost. It was the fact that I could finally finish something without asking anyone for permission. No green light from a major platform. Nobody deciding that a story was too small to deserve a crew. A year later, I could produce this way. It turned out to be a different job rather than the same job with new tools. Then I ran into a problem I hadn't considered: how do you show the work? A finished shot doesn't prove much anymore. A client can look at a beautiful frame and have no way to tell whether it took three weeks or three minutes. If I'm honest, neither would I in their position. The thing every portfolio is built to display had stopped being evidence. I'm not a developer. I produce films. The site is bilingual, has seven sections, includes a case study for each film, plays video on hover, and has a comparison slider that works with a thumb as well as a mouse. I built all of it. I'd wanted this exact site for about fifteen years and had never managed to explain it properly to anyone I paid to make it. This time, I stopped explaining and built it myself. The middle of the page has a slider that you drag between the storyboard panel and the final shot. A basic before-and-after would prove nothing; you can fake that by generating twice. The storyboard is the proof because the framing, eyeline, and decision about what stays outside the frame all existed on paper before any model was asked to generate anything. You drag the handle and watch the intention survive. The rest of the site came from the same place. Video only plays on hover and is silent until you click for sound. Most video portfolios are unreadable because fifteen things start moving at once. The sections are organized by register rather than by client: epic, brand, animation, and lifestyle. A wall of logos answers who has hired you, which nobody is actually wondering. What they want to know is whether you can change tone. Nothing is cropped to fit the grid. A 5:33 film sits in 16:9 next to a 2:42 film in scope, and the layout is lopsided because of it. I nearly made them uniform because it looked tidier, then realized I was about to reformat my own films so a webpage would look neat. Anyone who cuts for a living spots that immediately. Concepts are labeled as concepts. Experiments have their own section instead of being scattered among the client work and hoping nobody asks which is which. Step-by-step: 1. I started from what my client couldn't verify: the craft behind a shot. 2. I found the artifact that proves it. It's usually the ugly thing nobody publishes: the storyboard, the reference sheet, or the version before the good version. 3. I put that artifact next to the finished piece inside one interaction, so nobody has to search for the proof. 4. I made playback deliberate. Video plays on hover, and sound requires a click. 5. I sorted the work by the question being asked rather than by the credentials I wanted to lead with. 6. I didn't reformat the work to fit the layout. I let the grid be uneven. 7. I labeled everything honestly: client, concept, or experiment. One word each can pay for the credibility of the whole page. 8. I wrote a brief for each section as a document first. Arguing with a paragraph is free; arguing with a built page is not. 9. I built the site with an AI coding tool. This was the least interesting step, even though it's the one everyone writes about. If your work can be mistaken for a lucky prompt, stop trying to prove it with the finished piece. The site is at www.termopilas.tv if you want to drag the handle yourself.

AI coding tools can build quickly, but they can also build the wrong thing quickly. Starting implementation from a vague feature request leaves important decisions about scope, architecture, edge cases, success criteria, and expected behavior to be made implicitly during coding. I created a spec-generator agent that sits between an idea and implementation. I give it a feature request, product vision, or rough description of what I want to build. It investigates the existing project, identifies missing decisions and constraints, researches external dependencies when necessary, and turns the request into a detailed specification that another AI agent can implement without having to guess what I meant. The finished specification becomes the source of truth for the rest of the development workflow. Step-by-step: 1. I give the spec-generator the feature or product idea I want to build, along with any existing requirements, vision documents, or constraints. 2. I have it inspect the existing project before proposing a solution. It needs to understand the current architecture, conventions, capabilities, and relevant prior decisions rather than designing the feature in isolation. 3. I have it identify ambiguities and missing decisions, including questions about users, behavior, scope, dependencies, edge cases, data requirements, integrations, and what is explicitly out of scope. 4. I have it research external technologies, APIs, libraries, or platform capabilities when the design depends on facts that cannot be determined from the repository alone. 5. I have it translate the idea into a layered specification: first the product purpose and desired outcomes, then the technical architecture, and finally the detailed implementation requirements. 6. I have it define measurable success criteria and acceptance tests so that “done” means something concrete rather than simply “the code was written.” 7. I have it persist the finished specification in the project so developers or coding agents can treat it as the source of truth during implementation. 8. I pass the specification through a separate review or validation step before coding begins, resolving gaps or contradictions in the spec rather than discovering them halfway through implementation. Instead of asking an AI coding agent to interpret a rough idea while it writes code, I separate figuring out what should be built from building it.

I produce cinematic AI video. What ruins a sequence is almost never image quality; it is drift. The face, jacket, and light change between shots, so what should read as one scene becomes a gallery of near misses. Most people fight this by regenerating until something matches. I built the opposite: a set of chained Claude skills that locks a character once and never lets the model improvise again. The lesson that started it cost me 72 credits in one unusable shot. I fed a finished POV frame as an image reference to “set the world” for a motorcycle sequence. The model treated it as a strong identity reference, cloned the entire cockpit from that frame, and ignored the bike I was describing in the prompt. Image references are read as identity, not atmosphere. That misunderstanding is why most people’s characters mutate. Step-by-step: 1. I lock the character before generating anything. I fill nine layers in order: identity and facial structure, skin realism, wardrobe and materials, emotional energy, environment, lighting scheme, camera language, vertical 9:16 framing, and a fixed block of negative instructions. A generic prompt returns a generic face. This is direction, not a portrait. 2. I shoot a character sheet: a neutral, multi-view image of the locked character on white. That sheet—not a pretty hero frame—is what I reuse as a reference from then on. 3. I expand coverage instead of reinventing the scene. One locked scene becomes a full shot list with hero angles, macro inserts, and establishing shots. The subject, wardrobe, weather, and lighting never change between prompts. Only the camera, focal length, framing, and distance change. Every prompt restates the entire world from scratch because the generator has no memory between images. Consistency comes from redundancy, not from the model remembering. 4. I time the story before animating. I create a 3x3 board with nine beats over fifteen seconds, with each panel showing its timecode, shot title, and action. The rule is strict: the character, wardrobe, world, and light stay identical across all nine panels; only the story advances. The emotional scale rises toward panel nine. 5. I generate with reference discipline. I pass the object or vehicle in a clean exterior shot as the only image reference, then describe the world, framing, and interior in text, repeating that description word for word across shots. I chain consecutive shots by feeding the last frame of one as the start image of the next. The joins are invisible. 6. I review the board against the renders, keep the shots that hold, and regenerate only the ones that drift. The result is that I stopped paying the regeneration tax. Shots are budgeted, not gambled, and a fifteen-second sequence holds together because it was blocked like a real scene—with coverage and continuity—before a single frame existed. The nine-layer character build and the coverage framework are adapted from two AI video courses plus twenty years of production. I learned the reference discipline in step five the expensive way.

I used to create a skeptical VC investor persona through prompting whenever I ran ideas and actual business plans through AI. Recently, after working on a business plan for weeks, I used Claude Cowork with Opus 5/High to evaluate the same concept. Instead of prompting for critique and redesign each time, I built a Skill upfront. The concept is the same, but the Skill makes the execution much more effective. It reviews ideas or detailed business plans, researches first, and critiques only after that. It also analyzes and suggests wedges and new moats and, when instructed, generates detailed business plans. It works well as a one-shot analysis, but it is most effective when I push back and challenge it further. I’m sharing the Claude Skill for free under the MIT license: https://github.com/zszendro/vc-teardown Step-by-step: 1. I used to prompt AI to role-play a skeptical VC investor when reviewing ideas and business plans. 2. After working on a business plan for several weeks, I ran the same concept through Claude Cowork with Opus 5/High. 3. Instead of prompting separately for critique and redesign, I built a Skill upfront. 4. I designed the Skill to research first and critique only afterward. 5. I used it to review ideas or detailed business plans, analyze and suggest wedges and new moats, and generate detailed business plans when instructed. 6. I continued the analysis by pushing back and challenging the Skill beyond its initial one-shot response. 7. I shared the Claude Skill for free under the MIT license at https://github.com/zszendro/vc-teardown

QuickBooks stores customer data across multiple windows, including notes, deposits, invoices, payments, aging, and email. To see everything, we previously had to keep several windows open while constantly searching, opening, and closing screens. Communicating with customers beyond QuickBooks’ standard letters was also difficult and time-consuming. I used Claude to write a program that brings this information together in one view. It creates an aging summary of all past-due accounts, with sortable columns for customer name, aging category, and total. I also added columns for the last payment and payment date. Clicking anywhere on a customer’s row opens a full drill-down of that customer’s data on one page. The accounting person can view invoices filtered by date or open invoices, see payments and the invoices they were applied to, review aging detail, run reports without leaving the screen, send emails, record collection notes, and print invoices. The software supports simultaneous access for multiple authorized users. The data stays up to date and can be refreshed at any time. This saves us hours of time compared with working through QBO. My next step is to have Claude automate reminder notices at 30 and 60 days, based on user-selected settings, as well as 90-day collection letters. These notices will be customizable while still allowing automation. Step-by-step: 1. I identified the customer information that was spread across QuickBooks windows, including notes, deposits, invoices, payments, aging, and email. 2. I used Claude to write a program that creates an aging summary of all past-due accounts. 3. I added sortable columns for customer name, aging category, total, last payment, and payment date. 4. I enabled users to click a customer row and open a full drill-down of that customer’s data on one page. 5. I included access to date-selectable invoices, open invoices, payments and their applied invoices, aging detail, reports, emails, collection notes, and invoice printing. 6. I set up the software so multiple authorized users can access the data simultaneously and refresh it whenever needed. 7. I plan to add customizable, automated reminder notices at 30 and 60 days and collection letters at 90 days.

I used ChatGPT Voice Mode to help me program my mom’s garage door keypad—and the most important step happened before I touched a single button. I photographed the labels on both the garage door opener and the wireless keypad. ChatGPT spotted the real problem: the previous homeowner had replaced the opener but kept the old, incompatible keypad. That explained why we couldn’t get them to pair. Once ChatGPT identified the exact models, it helped me find a replacement keypad that was compatible with the newer opener. I also had it find and load the instruction manuals for both devices, since pairing required a specific sequence of button presses across them. Before we started, I had ChatGPT explain the complete pairing process so I knew what to expect and where timing would matter. Then I set my phone on top of the ladder so both hands were free to work with the keypad and opener. I gave ChatGPT one important instruction: “Walk me through one step at a time. After each step, stop and wait until I tell you what happened.” ChatGPT gave me one instruction, paused, and waited while I reported what the lights were doing. Then it adjusted and gave me the next step. That let me follow the crucial sequence of button presses—and the timing between them—exactly. The real lesson: AI troubleshooting gets much better when you provide the exact model numbers and manuals, let it preview the process, and have it guide you through the work one confirmed step at a time. Step-by-step: 1. I photographed every model number on the garage door opener and wireless keypad. 2. I used ChatGPT to identify the models and determine that the previous homeowner had left an old, incompatible keypad paired with the newer opener. 3. I used ChatGPT to find a compatible replacement keypad instead of guessing based on appearance or brand alone. 4. I had ChatGPT find and load the instruction manuals for the new keypad and garage door opener. 5. I asked ChatGPT to preview the complete pairing sequence, including where timing would matter. 6. I placed my phone on top of the ladder so both hands were free to work with the keypad and opener. 7. I switched to Voice Mode and told ChatGPT to give me one step at a time, pausing after each step until I reported what happened. 8. I reported what the lights were doing after each instruction so ChatGPT could adjust and give me the next step.

I run nine GitHub repos as one programme of work. Every project keeps its backlog as plain markdown inside its own repo, one Claude Code or ChatGPT Codex session works each project in parallel, and a single board in VS Code shows all of them moving at once. There is no project tool, no API and no sync job in the middle: the markdown file is the shared state that both I and the agents read and write. Step-by-step: 1. Put the backlog in the repo, as markdown. Every project gets `docstech/users/<me>/todo.md` and `done.md`. A story is a `###` heading. Structured fields ride in an empty markdown link at the end of it: `### Add rate limiting [](?status=doing&epic=api&time_estimated=180)`. GitHub renders an empty link as nothing, so the file still reads as prose in a pull request while carrying real metadata. 2. Write the story before the session starts. Each one has goal, background, scope, out of scope, the files it should touch, a checkbox task list, and acceptance criteria. That story is the prompt, and most of my thinking happens there rather than in chat. It decides whether the session comes back with anything shippable. 3. Open the parent folder in one window, and turn the files into a board. I open the parent folder holding all the projects and open any `todo.md` with NoteThink in Folder mode, which merges every markdown file under it into one view. Group the lanes by project and it is the programme view, one lane per repo. Group them by status and it is the delivery view, one Kanban across the whole portfolio. Each card carries a pill naming the project it came from, and clicking it opens that file at that story. 4. Start one Claude Code session per project. Every session opens with the same instruction: read `todo.md` top to bottom and take the top story. The sessions never talk to each other, because the file on disk is the only shared state. A session that dies costs nothing. 5. Let the board report progress instead of reading the sessions. Agents edit the markdown as they work: tick a task, flip `status=todo` to `status=doing`, move a finished story to `done.md`. The board watches the files, so cards animate into their new column as each change lands, and I can see which sessions are advancing without reading any of them. 6. Steer by dragging. Dragging a card between lanes writes the attribute back into the source markdown, so dropping one in "doing" makes the file say `status=doing` and the next agent turn reads it. Ticking a checkbox does the same. The board is the steering wheel and the file is the wire. 7. Close every story the same way. One slash command runs lint plus the full test suite, checks the story's tasks are ticked, and drafts the commit message; another ships to staging then production. The finished story moves to the end of `done.md`. Over time `done.md` becomes the programme record: what shipped, when, and what it cost. Try the board without installing anything. Here is a live example board, four projects merged into one view, and it is exactly what the screenshot shows: https://www.notegit.com/en/app/notegit.com/notegit/example_repo/blob/ai-board/board.md Results, honestly. Nine repos, about 260 open stories and about 1,400 completed ones, all in markdown inside the repos rather than a tracker. The backlog goes back to March 2024; the parallel sessions on top of it are the last four months. I run eight to twelve sessions at the same time, and the whole thing fits inside one Claude Max 20x subscription over a month of full-time work. Not all of it is code. The same parallel-session habit drives a nuclear reactor design study (https://github.com/cleverlight/mistergy) and several video and design projects. The board part fits best where the work already lives as files in a repo. Limits, honestly. The ceiling is my review capacity, not compute. Eight to twelve is where I sit; past that I stop reading output properly and start rubber-stamping, which is worse than running fewer. It only works when stories are genuinely independent, because two sessions in one file is a merge conflict you wrote yourself. Agents occasionally finish work and forget to move the story, so `done.md` needs a sanity check. And it assumes you will write the story properly first, which is real work that AI does not do for you. The screenshot is the public example board rather than my own, because my real one carries client project names. Disclosure: I build NoteThink, the free, open-source VS Code extension in step 3, and NoteGit, which hosts the example board. NoteThink is on the VS Code Marketplace, Apache-2.0, and genuinely early (v0.3.38, preview quality, a handful of installs). The workflow is tool-agnostic and the markdown is just markdown: any viewer will show it, and you can run the whole thing with no extension. NoteThink is what makes the cross-project board and the drag-writes-back-to-file part work.

I’m retired and in my early 70s. I never got into RPGs growing up, but I decided to try a tabletop RPG with my wife. The game I purchased included a rulebook and a PDF of the book. I wanted my wife and me to play as the player characters without either of us having to be the game master, so I tested whether AI could take on that role. I used ChatGPT to parse the PDF and walk us through the process. It helped us create our characters, Heisenberg and Felicity, and then started the game as the game master. We’ve only just started, but it seems like this is going to work well. The AI can keep secrets to itself, roll the dice when needed, and guide us through the adventure. Step-by-step: 1. I purchased a tabletop RPG that included a rulebook and a PDF of the book. 2. I used ChatGPT to parse the PDF and walk us through the process. 3. ChatGPT helped my wife and me create our player characters, Heisenberg and Felicity. 4. We had ChatGPT start the game as the game master so neither of us had to fill that role. 5. We began playing while ChatGPT kept secrets to itself, rolled the dice when needed, and guided us through the adventure.

Every RSVP tool I found wanted a monthly subscription to collect a few hundred yes-or-no answers, and none would return my data in a format I could use. So I built my own with Claude Code. The RSVP system is small: a form deployed on Vercel and embedded into our wedding website. We also emailed the direct link because plenty of guests might never visit the site. The form asks for more than a yes-or-no response. It collects meal choices, dietary restrictions, and plus-ones. Every submission adds a row to a Google Sheet through the Sheets API. That sheet ended up mattering more than the app. Months later, when it was time to create the seating chart, every guest was already represented in clean, structured rows that I could give to a completely different tool. For seating, I opened the same sheet in Claude and wrote out the rules in plain English: who had to sit together, who could not sit anywhere near each other, which relatives needed a quiet corner, and which friends could anchor a table of people who did not know anyone else. Claude produced a first draft that respected those constraints, along with an interactive board where I could drag people between tables. Step-by-step: 1. Tell Claude Code which fields you want on the RSVP form and have it build the front end and back end. Have Claude deploy it to Vercel. 2. Set up a Google Cloud service account, enable the Google Sheets API, and share the sheet with the service account’s email address. Configure each submission to append a row. 3. Embed the form on your wedding website and email the direct link separately. Some people will never open the website. 4. Ask for everything you will eventually need, not just attendance. Your caterer and venue will want meal counts and dietary restrictions, and going back to collect that information later is miserable. 5. When it is time to seat people, point Claude at the same sheet and write your rules in plain language: who must sit together, who cannot sit together, who needs a quiet table, and who can anchor a table of strangers. 6. Have Claude generate a first draft based on those rules, then move people yourself. This works anywhere you have a public form collecting data and a private tool that needs to reason about it. Put a spreadsheet between them instead of building one app that tries to do both. The form stays simple, and whatever you build six months later can read from the same place.