Workflow Hub

I submit two reports to my directors each month. Both use structured templates, but the updates come from multiple people and sources. Some information is unstructured, such as hallway conversations that are not always captured in email, so I have struggled to get the accuracy I need when using AI to build the reports. I am currently testing CoWork and Copilot Work IQ. These reports used to take me hours, so I am already saving time, but I want to refine the process further. I believe a better way to save and store the source data could improve the final outputs, although I have not worked out the right approach yet. Step-by-step: 1. I collect updates from multiple people and sources for the two monthly reports. 2. I organize the information into the structured templates required by my directors. 3. I use CoWork and Copilot Work IQ to help build the reports. 4. I account for unstructured updates, including information from hallway conversations that may not have been captured in email. 5. I am exploring better ways to save and store the source data so I can improve the accuracy of the reports while continuing to save time.

To stay organized, my daughter used to spend hours entering every assignment from her college syllabi into a Google Sheet to create a semester assignment tracker. To save her that data-entry time, I put all of her downloaded syllabi into a folder on my computer. I then directed Codex to access the folder, read the syllabi, and create a spreadsheet with the course name, assignment, due date, and a completed column with a checkbox. Codex created a beautiful, easy-to-sort-and-filter spreadsheet containing all of the assignments. Now, my daughter only needs to spend a few minutes reviewing the spreadsheet before starting her semester. Step-by-step: 1. I collected all of my daughter’s downloaded college syllabi in a folder on my computer. 2. I directed Codex to access the folder and read the syllabi. 3. I asked Codex to create a spreadsheet with the course name, assignment, due date, and a completed column with a checkbox. 4. I reviewed the resulting spreadsheet, which included all of the assignments and was easy to sort and filter. 5. My daughter now spends a few minutes checking the spreadsheet and is ready for her semester.

Sometimes I remember something perfectly badly: not its title, creator, or where I found it, but a sound, a color, a vague cover, a sentence, or a period in my life. I know it exists because I loved it, but I cannot name it. I use AI and my digital traces to recover songs, books, videos, articles, and quotes. Memory is not a catalog; it stores traces. AI can turn those traces into searchable hypotheses. Step-by-step: 1. I dump every surviving clue without waiting for a proper search query. The clues can be as rough as “The title sounded like nu nau tau,” “It was ambient or humming,” “The cover was maybe a green desert?” or “I knew it around 2019.” Another example is: “A book about makers and Disney. White 3D-printed figures, tiny people, and bears on a blue cover.” This is raw memory evidence. 2. I separate certainty from guessing by labeling each clue as certain, fairly sure, possible, or probably distorted. I keep uncertain clues, but do not treat them as facts. A wrong attribution or outdated cover does not invalidate everything else. 3. I reconstruct the original encounter. I ask where I was and whether I Shazamed it, saved it, sent it to someone, screenshotted it, or bought it at a book fair. In one case, I remembered hearing a song in someone’s car and Shazaming it because I could not parse the pronunciation. Remembering that capture action pointed to a retrieval source. 4. I search my own collections first: playlists, liked songs, Shazam history, saved videos, old posts, messages, bookmarks, notes, photos, receipts, and reading lists. The object may already be there under metadata I no longer remember. I start with the smallest reliable fragment. 5. I search for “nu” inside my playlists after remembering “nu nau tau.” That recovered Man O To — Nu. The artist and title had blended into one phrase, and the song was sitting in several playlists, including my Shazam collection. A clue does not need to be complete; it only needs to be distinctive enough inside the right collection. 6. I allow memory to scramble metadata. An artist and title may merge, album art may become song art, and a quotation may survive with the wrong poet attached. I split remembered phrases, swap artist and title, try different word boundaries, consider older releases, and search phonetically using similar syllables, vowel sounds, homophones, alternate spellings, or other languages. I also ask what the cover looked like when I knew it, because artwork changes. 7. I use context and cross-reference traces. A year, trip, relationship, or platform can narrow the search more than a half-correct title. Spotify might preserve the song, Shazam the discovery moment, and an old message the recommendation. Old posts are accidental archives, and dead links may still leave names, dates, or descriptions. If memory fails completely, I inspect behavior from the relevant period, such as repeated listening, watch history, purchases, or library loans. 8. I let AI propose candidates and compare them against several independent clues, including sound, subject, period, cover, and personal context. One matching detail is not confirmation. I show titles, covers, creator names, and short descriptions because recognition may succeed where recall fails. Rejections also help: “No, but the cover was more minimal,” “The title was shorter,” or “It was fiction, not nonfiction.” Each correction sharpens the search. 9. I pay attention to the strangest clue. The blue cover with white figures, bears, and a makers-and-Disney theme led to *Makers* by Cory Doctorow. 10. Once I confirm the object, I save the title, creator, link, why it mattered, and how I recovered it. For example: - Clue: “nu nau tau” - Encounter: heard in someone’s car and Shazamed - Search: Spotify/Shazam collection → “nu” - Result: Man O To — Nu - Distortion: artist and title blended together This becomes a retrieval playbook: which clues survive, where traces live, and how my memory distorts them. The overall workflow is: collect fragments → mark uncertainty → reconstruct the encounter → search personal traces → try phonetic, visual, and contextual clues → compare candidates → recognize and confirm → save the result and retrieval path. I do not need to remember the database fields. I need enough fragments to rebuild the trail. Sometimes the best clue is what I did when I first encountered something. Sometimes it has been sitting in five of my own playlists while I spend years wondering what it was called. 😑😭🎧

I use this workflow to handle new business enquiries by connecting AI to the actual business process instead of using AI as a standalone chatbot. The process moves each lead from AI qualification to a CRM update, sales notification, and follow-up. AI extracts the service required, budget, location, and urgency, then routes the lead based on the result: - High intent: Notify sales immediately - Medium intent: Start an automated follow-up - Low intent: Add the lead to a nurture sequence Step-by-step: 1. Capture the new business enquiry. 2. Use AI to extract the service required, budget, location, and urgency. 3. Update the CRM with the qualification details. 4. Route the lead according to its intent level. 5. Notify sales immediately for high-intent leads, start automated follow-up for medium-intent leads, and add low-intent leads to a nurture sequence.

I built a workflow for turning large ChatGPT conversation exports into a usable personal and creative archive instead of simply storing them as backups. The archive is processed incrementally. The inventory is built offline, and conversations that have already been indexed are not needlessly reanalyzed on every run. Each new export is compared with the existing archive, and only newly added conversations or conversations that have been revisited, extended, or otherwise changed are processed again and updated in the inventory. This keeps the workflow lightweight while allowing the archive to evolve over time. A conversation can remain stable for months, then become relevant again and receive new material without forcing the entire archive back through analysis. This matters because many of my conversations are long, layered thinking sessions: creative explorations, project development, research, problem-solving, or extended reflection. Without an inventory, the depth inside those individual conversations and thinking processes becomes difficult to retrieve later. The workflow makes long-form analysis and creative thought processes findable and reusable without flattening them into a few generic summaries. On top of the inventory, I use lightweight “blubscans” (analysis to improve retrieval): small, human-readable summaries that capture what mattered during a day or period without replacing the original conversations. They act as a navigational layer between thousands of raw messages and the things I may want to find, understand, revisit, or continue later. The important principle is that compression never becomes deletion. The raw conversations remain the source of truth, the inventory provides structure, and the scans provide context and tone. The result is more than a backup system. It becomes working creative memory: something I can preserve, search, revisit, connect across time, and reuse for projects, research, writing, pattern-finding, and future creative work. In simple terms, the structure is: raw exports → offline incremental inventory → blubscans/context layer → retrieval and reuse for later projects and creative work That way, the archive stays deep without becoming heavy, and useful without constantly reprocessing everything that was already understood. Step-by-step: 1. I collect large ChatGPT conversation exports as the raw source material for the archive. 2. I build and maintain an offline inventory of the conversations that have been indexed. 3. With each new export, I compare the conversations against the existing archive. 4. I process only newly added conversations and conversations that have been revisited, extended, or otherwise changed. 5. I update the inventory with the results while leaving stable conversations untouched. 6. I create lightweight “blubscans” with small, human-readable summaries of what mattered during a day or period. 7. I use the raw conversations as the source of truth, the inventory for structure, and the scans for context and tone. 8. I retrieve and reuse the archive for projects, research, writing, pattern-finding, and future creative work.

I use this workflow when I have a problem but do not yet know which software, service, or method could solve it. Instead of immediately asking for “the best app,” I describe the situation in ordinary language: what I am trying to do, what currently annoys me, what I have already tried, and what would make a solution useful. Then AI helps me map the tool landscape. The important shift is that the criteria emerge from the conversation. The workflow does not search for an abstract “best tool.” It builds a model of what a good tool means for this particular problem and person, then evaluates the available options against that model. This also makes the result reusable. When my requirements change later, I can update the comparison rather than redo the entire research process. Step-by-step: 1. I describe the problem and desired outcome. 2. I identify the requirements that actually matter in this situation. 3. I research the relevant tools and approaches. 4. I compare them side by side using practical criteria such as functionality, price, pricing model, platform, setup effort, learning curve, and ease of use. 5. I ask questions where the requirements are still unclear. 6. I react to the comparison—for example, by noting that something is too expensive, that a subscription is a dealbreaker, that an option looks cumbersome, that I need more statistics, or that I do not need project management. 7. I update the comparison using that feedback instead of starting the search from scratch. 8. I narrow the field and, where useful, test the remaining options on one small real-world task. 9. I record why the chosen tool fits and why seemingly similar alternatives did not.

I built three interconnected websites for the Solomon for Jesus ministry. The first, solomonforjesus.com, houses the shining jewel: an AI chatbot named Solomon. The second, solomonforjesus.net, is a ministry academy with four levels of instruction and 16 lessons per level. The third, solomonforjesus.net, is home to my book *Fingerprint of Reality* and other articles and essays. All three websites are still in development, but they are operating and publicly available. I use GitHub repositories for coding, Vercel for hosting, Cloudflare for domains, and Supabase for back-end security. Step-by-step: 1. I built three interconnected websites for the Solomon for Jesus ministry. 2. I used solomonforjesus.com for the Solomon AI chatbot. 3. I used solomonforjesus.net for the ministry academy, which contains four instructional levels with 16 lessons per level. 4. I used solomonforjesus.net for my book *Fingerprint of Reality* and other articles and essays. 5. I use GitHub repositories to code, Vercel to host, Cloudflare for domains, and Supabase for back-end security. 6. I keep all three websites operating and publicly available while they remain in development.

I’m building an AI travel assistant called SundayAtlas, and I wanted a systematic way to keep learning from what travelers are talking about between individual user conversations. Reddit is useful for this because people are unusually candid about trip-planning frustrations, destinations, bad experiences, and what they wish travel products did better. The problem is volume: I didn’t want to manually read hundreds of posts every week, so I built a Reddit Signal Agent that does the first pass and sends me a weekly travel-insights newsletter. Each week, the workflow collects posts from selected travel subreddits and passes them through an LLM-based classification and analysis pipeline. The report is organized around: - New or intensifying signals - Steady baseline themes - Fading signals - Rising destinations - Competitor mentions - Anomalies unusual enough to warrant attention This week, for example, the agent analyzed 77 posts. It surfaced a spike in discussion around short-term rental restrictions in Tokyo, growing payment friction for travelers in Japan, increased interest in quieter alternatives to heavily touristed Asian destinations, and recurring trust issues involving travel platforms. I use the newsletter as one input into product discovery for SundayAtlas. It gives me a weekly pulse on problems and behaviors that may be worth investigating further, rather than relying purely on my own assumptions about what travelers need. Step-by-step: 1. I collect recent posts from a defined set of travel subreddits. 2. I clean and structure the Reddit data for analysis. 3. I run the posts through an LLM using a defined signal taxonomy. 4. I aggregate the classifications across the weekly sample to identify patterns, changes, and anomalies. 5. I generate the report in a consistent newsletter format. 6. I run the full pipeline automatically with GitHub Actions so a new report is produced each week. I built the agent in Node.js and used Claude Code extensively during development. Evaluation ended up being the most important part. Early outputs looked convincing, but I had no objective way to know whether the classifications were actually good. I manually labeled 91 Reddit posts and created a blind golden dataset, then built a deterministic scorer to compare the agent’s classifications with my labels. The first held-out evaluation scored only 0.23, which gave me something concrete to improve against. I iterated on the classification approach and inspected individual failures. Along the way, I found three separate defects in the data collection pipeline. The held-out score eventually improved to 0.61, while the score across the full dataset increased from 0.33 to 0.67. The finished loop is: Reddit conversations → signal classification → trend analysis → weekly insights newsletter → product discovery for SundayAtlas The golden dataset remains underneath the workflow as a regression test, so when I change the agent, I can measure whether I’ve actually improved it.

Commercial vehicle maintenance information is often fragmented across driver reports, warning lights, fault codes, inspections, repair records, and vehicle history. This makes it difficult for smaller fleets to decide whether a vehicle can continue operating, requires scheduled repair, or should be stopped immediately. We built TruckFixr Fleet AI to turn an unstructured driver report into a clear, reviewable maintenance action. The workflow begins when a driver submits symptoms, photos, fault codes, and vehicle information through a mobile-friendly form. AI and optical character recognition extract the relevant details and organize them into a structured maintenance case. The report is then evaluated alongside available vehicle history and previous repairs. The workflow provides decision support through three practical actions: continue operating while monitoring, schedule an inspection or repair, or stop and escalate for immediate professional assessment. Final safety decisions remain with authorized fleet or maintenance personnel. After an inspection or repair, the confirmed cause, work performed, and outcome are recorded, creating a more complete vehicle history for future cases. The general workflow can be recreated using a mobile form, OCR, a vehicle-history database, an AI model, automation software, and a human-review dashboard. Step-by-step: 1. A driver submits symptoms, photos, fault codes, and vehicle information through a mobile-friendly form. 2. AI and optical character recognition extract the relevant details and organize them into a structured maintenance case. 3. The workflow compares the report with available vehicle history and previous repairs. 4. The system provides one of three decision-support actions: continue operating while monitoring, schedule an inspection or repair, or stop and escalate for immediate professional assessment. 5. Authorized fleet or maintenance personnel make the final safety decision. 6. After inspection or repair, the confirmed cause, work performed, and outcome are recorded in the vehicle history. TruckFixr has used this approach to support more than 100 vehicle-issue resolutions in early fleet pilots, helping fleets identify problems earlier, prevent avoidable breakdowns, and keep vehicles moving safely.

I love reading, but I’m indecisive about what to read next. Lately, I’ve been getting recommendations from ChatGPT, which has led me to keep adding books to my to-read list instead of tackling the books that have been there for years. At the same time, searching through my 200 existing TBR books on Goodreads for one that matches my precise mood would be too time-consuming. To solve this, I exported all the books from my Goodreads bookshelf as a CSV file, uploaded it to ChatGPT, and asked it to recommend books from my “to-read” list that matched a description of what I was currently in the mood to read. For example, I asked it to recommend a book from my TBR list that was published in the 19th or 20th century and featured a strong, unforgettable heroine. It gave me a few options, and I decided to read *O Pioneers!* by Willa Cather next. One note: ChatGPT summarizes the plots of the books it recommends, so I suggest adding “no spoilers, please” to your prompt. Step-by-step: 1. I exported all the books from my Goodreads bookshelf as a CSV file. 2. I uploaded the CSV file to ChatGPT. 3. I described the kind of book I was currently in the mood to read, including publication period and character preferences. 4. I asked ChatGPT to recommend books only from my existing Goodreads “to-read” list. 5. I added “no spoilers, please” to prevent plot summaries from revealing too much. 6. I chose *O Pioneers!* by Willa Cather from the recommendations.

This Codex-driven workflow takes a software request from problem understanding through implementation, validation, review, and delivery evidence. Instead of asking an AI coding agent to simply “build the feature,” it gives the agent an explicit development lifecycle with defined responsibilities, deterministic validation gates, repair loops, and human checkpoints. The goal is to make AI-assisted development more structured, observable, and recoverable. It can be used for new feature implementation, bug fixing, refactoring, test creation and improvement, code quality and security hardening, and documentation and automation changes. The core principle is simple: Don't give the AI only a coding task. Give it an engineering lifecycle to work on. Step-by-step: 1. Understand the problem. Clarify the request, identify the desired outcome, define the scope, and surface ambiguity before implementation begins. The output is problem understanding and scope. 2. Define constraints. Identify technical, functional, non-functional, compatibility, and out-of-scope constraints. The output is a constraint set. 3. Plan. Analyze implementation options, select an appropriate approach, break the work into tasks, and define acceptance criteria. The output is an implementation plan. 4. Inspect the existing system. Review the relevant codebase, dependencies, current behavior, and affected components before making changes. The output is system context. 5. Implement. Make the smallest appropriate code changes while following the existing project’s conventions and the approved plan. The output is code changes. 6. Run deterministic validation. Run tools that can objectively validate the implementation, including formatting, linting, type checks, builds, unit tests, and other available automated checks. The output is validation results. 7. Review. Evaluate the implementation against the original requirement, the plan, code quality expectations, security considerations, and potential regressions. The output is review findings. 8. Repair and iterate. If validation or review identifies problems, diagnose the issue, make the required correction, and repeat validation. The output is a corrected implementation. 9. Verify. Confirm that the acceptance criteria are satisfied and that the relevant tests and checks provide sufficient evidence for completion. The output is a verification result. 10. Produce delivery evidence and handoff. Summarize what changed, what was tested, what passed, known limitations, and any remaining decisions requiring human attention. The output is delivery evidence and a human handoff. The core loop is: Implement → Validate → Review → Repair → Validate → Verify. Testing and review are treated as part of development rather than activities performed only after coding is “finished.” AI coding agents are increasingly capable of inspecting repositories, writing code, running commands, and responding to failures. The problem is that capability alone does not provide an engineering process. This workflow separates the responsibilities an AI coding agent performs into explicit stages. It applies several principles: - Problem before implementation: Understand what needs to change before writing code. - WHY before HOW: Establish the intent and constraints before choosing an implementation. - Single responsibility per stage: Give each stage a defined purpose and output. - Deterministic validation first: Use tests, linters, type checkers, builds, and other deterministic tools wherever they can establish correctness. - Failure localization: When something fails, identify which stage or assumption needs correction. - Evidence-based completion: Support completion with validation and review evidence rather than an AI declaration that the task is finished. - Human checkpoints: Use automation to accelerate execution without removing human judgment from important decisions. The broader idea is: The AI should participate in the engineering system, not become the engineering system.

I’m building a mobile game called ExoLab Blast with Astra. I developed it through conversation, starting with the basic concept and continuing through testing the game mechanics. Astra also created and repeatedly updated the game’s graphics and UI based on my feedback. Step-by-step: 1. I discussed the basic concept for ExoLab Blast with Astra. 2. I used Astra to build out the mobile game. 3. I tested the game mechanics. 4. I gave feedback on the graphics and UI. 5. Astra created and updated the graphics and UI multiple times based on that feedback.

Faceplant is a real full-stack app, not a mockup. It uses a FastAPI and PostgreSQL backend, a React and MUI frontend, and the Anthropic API (Claude) to power bot replies. The core is the reaction engine. When a human posts, the backend schedules two timed waves of reaction jobs. A background scheduler built with APScheduler polls for due jobs, calls Claude for an in-persona reply, and writes that bot’s comment and like. The 56 personas are stored as data in a roster file. Adding a voice requires only one new entry, so the crowd can scale without additional code. A subset of the personas are GIF-first bots: they ask the model for a caption and search tag, then pull a matching GIF from Giphy. The part I’m proudest of is the honesty layer. Every Claude call is metered and priced, and “The Meter” rolls the data up live with the cost per post, the dollar-per-minute burn rate, and a “spent on nobody” line for bot-to-bot chatter with no human at either end. A “% human” badge drains toward “dead internet” for each thread. The dead-internet loop—bots posting and replying to one another with no human present—is disabled by default and protected by three guardrails: generation decay, a per-thread cap, and a global spend kill switch. Optional cost controls include the Message Batches API at half price and prompt caching for a shared house-style prompt. The whole project is a working demonstration that manufactured engagement is cheap to produce and expensive to mean anything. Step-by-step: 1. I built the app with a FastAPI and PostgreSQL backend, a React and MUI frontend, and Claude replies powered by the Anthropic API. 2. When a human posts, the backend schedules two timed waves of reaction jobs. 3. APScheduler polls for due jobs and triggers Claude to generate an in-persona reply before writing the bot’s comment and like. 4. I keep the 56 personas in a roster file so adding a voice requires only one new data entry. 5. For GIF-first bots, I have the model generate a caption and search tag, then use that tag to pull a matching GIF from Giphy. 6. I meter and price every Claude call, then display live cost per post, dollar-per-minute burn, “spent on nobody” costs, and the “% human” status for each thread. 7. I keep bot-to-bot activity disabled by default and limit it with generation decay, a per-thread cap, and a global spend kill switch. 8. I can reduce costs further with the Message Batches API at half price and prompt caching on a shared house-style prompt.

I used Claude to build an automated patient scheduler for my husband, who is the Director of Rehab at a skilled nursing facility. Each week, he takes a patient list in Excel and schedules each patient for the types of therapy they need—speech, physical therapy, or occupational therapy—based on therapist availability. The variables change from week to week, making the process time-consuming and error-prone. Automating it saves him at least an hour each week, usually on Sundays when he creates the schedule for the coming week. He uploads the patient spreadsheet and clicks “Generate schedule.” Under the hood, the app uses Google’s OR-Tools CP-SAT solver to optimize the schedule against hard constraints and weighted priorities. Hard constraints include never exceeding a therapist’s daily capacity or a patient’s maximum weekly visits. Weighted priorities include giving higher-acuity patients preference when capacity is tight, providing every patient with daily contact when possible, and balancing the workload across the week instead of simply sorting patients by who fits first. I wrote zero code. I gave Claude all the features in plain English, and it wrote the app in Python and created a test suite of approximately 35 tests. One test was added after we found and diagnosed a bug in production. I also had Claude walk me through creating a `.exe` file that I could send directly to my husband so it would open on his PC. Patient data never leaves his machine. New versions are easily compiled in GitHub, where patient data never touches the process, and enhancements only require sending a new file. Step-by-step: 1. I described the scheduling requirements and features to Claude in plain English. 2. Claude wrote the scheduling app in Python and created a test suite of approximately 35 tests. 3. I provided an Excel spreadsheet containing the weekly patient list. 4. My husband uploads the spreadsheet and clicks “Generate schedule.” 5. The app uses Google’s OR-Tools CP-SAT solver to schedule speech, physical therapy, and occupational therapy according to therapist availability and patient needs. 6. The solver enforces therapist daily-capacity limits and patient maximum-weekly-visit limits. 7. It also applies weighted priorities: higher-acuity patients receive preference when capacity is tight, every patient receives daily contact when possible, and the workload is balanced across the week. 8. After finding and diagnosing a production bug, we added a corresponding test to the suite. 9. I used Claude’s guidance to create a `.exe` file that opens on my husband’s PC, keeping patient data on his machine. 10. I compile new versions in GitHub without patient data entering that process, then send the updated file when enhancements are needed.

I built an Awish workflow that handles a support ticket before anyone on the team opens it. I realized support tickets were not just taking time to answer. Someone still had to understand the problem, decide how urgent it was, search the documentation, route it to the right person, and prepare a response. I wanted that first layer of support work to happen automatically. I opened Awish and wrote: “Whenever a new support ticket comes in, understand the issue, determine its urgency, check our documentation, prepare a response, create a Jira issue if it looks like a product bug, and escalate anything important to the team before taking customer-facing action.” Awish understood the request, planned the workflow, and showed me which applications it needed. Step-by-step: 1. I described the complete support process I wanted in the Awish chat. 2. Awish planned the workflow and selected Zendesk, Notion, Jira, and Slack for the required steps. 3. I connected my accounts and approved the automation plan. 4. When a new Zendesk ticket arrives, the workflow identifies the issue type, urgency, and customer intent. 5. It checks the relevant Notion documentation and prepares a response based on the available information. 6. If the issue looks like a product bug, it creates a Jira ticket with the customer context already attached. 7. Urgent or sensitive cases are escalated to the team instead of being handled automatically. 8. I connected WhatsApp from the Awish chat. I now receive workflow updates there and can manage the automation without opening Awish. Customer-facing actions still stay under my control when approval is needed.

I built an archery app that uses AI to detect arrows and bullseyes on an archery target. It groups the arrows, measures how tight the groupings are, and calculates each arrow’s distance from the bullseye. It also shows the arrows’ locations and their relationship to the bullseye—for example, whether a shot is too far left, right, high, or low, or is dead on. The app can use targets from competition standings to score a shoot according to different standards. After shooting a set of arrows, the archer takes a photo, and the AI detects the target, identifies one or more bullseyes, predicts which arrows are intended for each target, and completes the measurements and scoring almost instantly. The results can then be sent to a coach, who can provide feedback, tips, and techniques to help improve the archer’s shooting. I trained my own model using 3,000 photographs that I took and hand-labeled with the bullseyes and arrows identified. I ran a series of training sessions over several weeks and refined the model to improve its accuracy. It currently achieves about 95% accuracy for arrows and about 90% accuracy for bullseyes. Step-by-step: 1. I took 3,000 photographs of archery targets. 2. I hand-labeled the arrows and bullseyes in those photographs. 3. I trained my own AI model in a series of sessions over several weeks. 4. I refined the model to improve its detection accuracy. 5. An archer shoots a set of arrows and takes a photo of the target. 6. The app detects the target, one or more bullseyes, and the arrows, then predicts which arrows are intended for each target. 7. The app groups the arrows, measures grouping tightness and distance from the bullseye, identifies each arrow’s position relative to the bullseye, and scores the shoot according to the selected standard. 8. The results are sent to a coach for feedback and advice on improving the archer’s shooting.

I love golf, but many of the courses I most want to play are private and nearly impossible to access unless you know a member. Instead of manually emailing clubs, searching charity events, asking for introductions, and trying to remember who I contacted months ago, I built a Private Golf Access Agent in ChatGPT. The goal is to identify legitimate opportunities to play highly rated private clubs without simply paying my way in. I gave the agent 50 target clubs across the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic, including 10 “moonshot” courses where an invitation would be extremely difficult. The agent acts more like a golf-access researcher, relationship manager, and outreach assistant than a chatbot. It researches each club, identifies access paths, finds the right person, personalizes outreach, tracks every interaction, monitors opportunities, and recommends what to do next. I still approve every email before anything is sent. That matters because I don’t want the agent spamming clubs, inventing relationships, or continuing after someone says no. The system looks for legitimate paths, including professional introductions, complimentary charity or special-event opportunities, reciprocal access, personalized direct outreach, unused guest spots, golf-project requests, and long-term relationship opportunities. Step-by-step: 1. I divided the 50 clubs into moonshots, elite targets, and high-quality targets. 2. I had the agent research each club independently, including its leadership, PGA professionals, policies, events, social media, recent news, reviews, charitable connections, and possible introductions. 3. The agent identified the most appropriate contact and researched why that person made sense. 4. Before writing, it gathered specific details so each email was clearly personalized rather than a blast. 5. I trained its cold-outreach persona to sound like a blend of me and two or three sales trainers I admire, including Josh Braun-style low-pressure curiosity, short conversational writing, humor, and an easy way to say no. 6. The agent can learn new skills and add them to its protocol. For example, when it struggled to find employee email addresses, I taught it my Google search method. That method is now part of the workflow it uses for future clubs. 7. I tracked everything in a live Google Sheet showing the current status, progress, next action, opportunity status, and whether I need to approve something. The current status column is highlighted so I can check where every club stands in real time. The statuses include: Researching → Ready for AJ Review → Outreach Sent → Conversation Open → Opportunity Identified → Monitoring. 8. If there is no immediate path, the agent does not keep bothering the club. It moves the club into monitoring mode and waits for a better opportunity. 9. When someone responds, the system keeps the relationship history so future communication builds on the real conversation. The live tracker is shown in a Google Sheet status screenshot. What I like most is that the AI isn’t doing one isolated task. It handles the repetitive parts of an ongoing objective—research, qualification, contact discovery, personalization, organization, monitoring, and follow-up—while leaving the important judgment calls with me. Eventually, I want it operating like a 24/7 private-golf-access concierge: 50 clubs being researched and monitored, with me only getting involved when the agent finds something worth acting on. TOOLS USED: ChatGPT, Gmail, Google Sheets, Google Drive/Docs, web research, and AI agents/automations.

The Rundown recently held our first in-person retreat in Portugal, which was also my first time traveling to Europe. Claude and ChatGPT were amazing resources throughout the trip, from helping me navigate a chaotic international airport to providing personalized advice on cultural differences, tipping, translating menus, and using public transportation. My wife accompanied me and had plenty of time for solo exploration during the day. She is already a big planner, but a ChatGPT project containing our trip information helped her create a detailed plan, including a packing list, pre-trip checklist, and well-structured day-by-day itinerary for seeing as much of Lisbon as possible. As someone who gets stressed by travel, having an expert with context about my life available in my pocket to answer questions whenever I needed it is something I can’t imagine taking trips without. Step-by-step: 1. I used Claude and ChatGPT for personalized travel guidance during my first trip to Europe. 2. I asked for help navigating a chaotic international airport and handling cultural differences, including tipping, translating menus, and using public transportation. 3. My wife created a ChatGPT project with our trip information to support her planning. 4. She used it to create a packing list, pre-trip checklist, and day-by-day plan for exploring Lisbon during her solo time. 5. I used the tools throughout the trip to answer questions with context about my life and reduce the stress of traveling.

We needed legal help with a small-claims case. A company owed us $3,500, and the cost of hiring a lawyer would have far exceeded that amount. I used Grok to explain what to do and how to file the paperwork. Last week, I served three writs of garnishment on banks that might hold the company’s money. Whichever bank has its account will now have to freeze the account and turn that amount over to us. Before AI, I would have had no idea how to do this on my own. Grok scans my completed documents for errors and directed me to the correct county sheriff’s office to have the papers served. It can explain things more simply when I don’t understand them. Need legal help in your state? AI can guide you step by step. Step-by-step: 1. I explained the small-claims situation to Grok, including that the company owed us $3,500 and that hiring a lawyer would cost more than the amount owed. 2. I asked Grok what to do and how to file the paperwork. 3. I used Grok to scan my completed documents for errors. 4. I followed Grok’s direction to the correct county sheriff’s office for serving the papers. 5. I served three writs of garnishment on banks that might hold the company’s money. 6. The bank holding the company’s account will have to freeze the account and turn the amount owed over to us.

I use AI to turn shifting interests into a flexible learning route instead of committing too early to one fixed curriculum. I start with what I am genuinely curious about: the topics currently holding my attention, what I already know, what I want to understand better, and what kind of learning feels useful. Rather than choosing one large Coursera program and hoping it remains relevant for months, I ask AI to identify the underlying themes. Several interests that look unrelated on the surface may share the same foundations. Other topics may be better approached through design, psychology, technology, history, or systems thinking. I can then combine courses from different programs instead of treating one certificate as the only valid path. The learning route stays flexible: I can postpone a course, insert a new one, or drop a subject that turns out to be less interesting without treating that as failure. The result is less like enrolling in a predefined curriculum and more like building a living learning map. AI helps with course discovery, sequencing, overlap, prerequisites, and the relationships between different topics. I remain the one deciding what is worth following. The goal is not maximum completion. It is to keep learning connected to genuine curiosity. Step-by-step: 1. I identify the topics currently holding my attention, along with what I already know, what I want to understand better, and what kind of learning feels useful. 2. I share that context with AI and ask it to identify the underlying themes across my interests. 3. I use those themes to determine whether different topics are connected through shared foundations or are better approached through design, psychology, technology, history, or systems thinking. 4. I discover and combine courses across different programs instead of committing to one large Coursera program or treating one certificate as the only valid path. 5. I ask AI to help with course sequencing, overlap, prerequisites, and the relationships between topics. 6. I adjust the learning route as my curiosity changes by postponing, adding, or dropping courses while deciding for myself what is worth following.