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

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 asked ChatGPT to create a graphic for my company. I provided our company colors, logo, brand guide, the objective of the graphic, and information about our audience. ChatGPT then created the graphic based on those details. Step-by-step: 1. I asked ChatGPT to create a graphic for my company. 2. I provided our company colors, logo, and brand guide. 3. I explained the objective of the graphic. 4. I described the intended audience. 5. ChatGPT created the graphic using the information I provided.

I use this workflow when I want fresh creative input for my visual work and want to expand my inspiration library in Eagle without collapsing into randomness. The starting point is not a generic prompt like “show me inspiring artists.” I give the AI examples of images, artists, materials, traditions, or visual details that already catch my attention. The AI first looks for patterns in what I respond to: color, material, composition, atmosphere, craft techniques, cultural traditions, natural structures, architectural forms, and more. From there, we branch outward. I explore adjacent references across disciplines, cultures, periods, and materials rather than looking only for visually similar work. I react freely to the suggestions: “This texture, yes.” “This artist, no.” “More of that construction method.” “Less decorative.” “Stranger.” “Older.” “Softer.” Those reactions steer the next round of research. One research session, for example, moved through Indian stepwells; Ajrakh and Bandhani textiles from Gujarat and Kutch; Tibetan/Ladakhi painted textiles; Miao baby carriers; Dong wooden bridges; art from Papua; Russian lubok prints; and even 11th-century goldworking in Panama. These references do not belong to one tidy category, period, or geography. That is precisely the point. The session was driven by visual responses and emerging connections involving color, surface, construction, ornament, repetition, symbolism, material, and technique. Each discovery created a new branch to follow. AI made it possible to move laterally across disciplines, cultures, and centuries without losing the thread of what was visually interesting to me. I then selected only the references that genuinely sparked something and added those to Eagle. The result is not just a collection of “similar images,” but a deliberately expanded visual vocabulary. The human remains the curator. AI expands the search radius; taste decides what enters the library. Sometimes there is no initial research question at all. A joke, misheard word, object, memory, or accidental phrase becomes the seed. The value is in allowing associative drift to continue long enough for a real curiosity trail to emerge. > The research does not always begin with a topic. Sometimes the topic is discovered during the wandering. Step-by-step: 1. I start with a few visual references I genuinely like. 2. I ask AI to identify recurring visual qualities and possible connections. 3. I explore adjacent references across disciplines, cultures, periods, and materials rather than searching only for visually similar work. 4. I react freely to the suggestions, noting what I want more or less of, such as a particular texture, artist, construction method, decorative quality, age, or atmosphere. 5. I let those reactions steer the next round of research. 6. I open the references and collect only the images that actually trigger something. 7. I save those images in Eagle as a curated visual library rather than an indiscriminate image dump. 8. I add useful context through folders, collections, tags, or notes so the references can resurface later.

I use ChatGPT to turn a physical trading card collection into a structured digital inventory. I start by photographing the collection and uploading the images to Google Drive. I divide the cards into logical groups and store them in separate subfolders, creating a clear structure before identification begins. ChatGPT then works through the folders in manageable batches, using OCR and visual recognition to extract information from the cards. This avoids manually uploading and describing every card one by one. I use consistent processing rules to reduce mistakes: I limit the number of cards per batch, make sure every source image is accounted for, and use one central card per photo when identification could otherwise be ambiguous. For each card, ChatGPT helps identify and organize the information I want to keep: card name, set code, set or series, edition, rarity, language, quantity, approximate year or period, condition notes, confidence level, and the source image. The useful part is not just OCR or card recognition. It is the combination of a structured Google Drive archive, visual identification, consistency checks, and systematic data extraction across a large physical collection. When identification is uncertain, I record that uncertainty rather than silently guessing. Damaged or unusual cards can also receive specific notes, such as foil scratches, edge wear, folds, or other condition issues. Once all folders have been processed, I consolidate the separate batches into one central inventory so I can check duplicates, quantities, and inconsistencies more easily. I first used this workflow for a Yu-Gi-Oh! collection and plan to reuse the same process for a Harry Potter trading card collection. The result is a searchable, structured overview of a physical collection that can later be used for valuation, selling, insurance, cataloguing, or simply knowing what is actually in the boxes. Step-by-step: 1. I photograph the physical trading card collection. 2. I upload the images to Google Drive and divide them into logical groups stored in separate subfolders. 3. I process the folders with ChatGPT in manageable batches using OCR and visual recognition. 4. I limit the number of cards per batch, account for every source image, and use one central card per photo when needed to reduce ambiguity. 5. I extract each card’s name, set code, set or series, edition, rarity, language, quantity, approximate year or period, condition notes, confidence level, and source image. 6. I record uncertainty instead of silently guessing and add specific notes for damaged or unusual cards, such as foil scratches, edge wear, and folds. 7. I consolidate the processed batches into one central inventory to check duplicates, quantities, and inconsistencies. 8. I reuse the process for additional collections, including my planned Harry Potter trading card collection.

Learning baselines of app development, mainly coding. The concept and business model is fully intact, now the requirement is solely leaning on execution. The tools for execution are lacking.

I’m behind and self taught when it comes to prompt engineering and would like some guidance. I use terms like “exact replica” of image, “do not alter features”

I’ve found it useful to use Claude while reading nonfiction books, such as *Factfulness* by Rosling. I ask Claude for a synopsis of the book and save the result as a PDF on my computer for future reference. I also ask Claude to quiz me about the book, either with multiple-choice questions or in short-answer format, to test whether I’ve fully understood what I’ve read. In an ongoing conversation, Claude can also relate the current book to other books I’ve recently read and provide additional synopses. Step-by-step: 1. I tell Claude which nonfiction book I’m reading, such as *Factfulness* by Rosling. 2. I ask Claude to create a synopsis of the book. 3. I save the synopsis as a PDF on my computer for future reference. 4. I ask Claude to quiz me using either multiple-choice or short-answer questions. 5. I continue the conversation so Claude can relate the book to other books I’ve recently read and provide further synopses.

I used ChatGPT to help me manage my health care. I have multiple diagnoses, including CHF, CKD, pulmonary hypertension, lupus, a metabolic disorder, and kidney cancer. I gave ChatGPT access to my medical history and began using it to review my test results and prioritize questions for my doctors. On a recent lab report, my platelet count was low. ChatGPT reviewed six years of results and showed me that it had consistently been low, with the latest result below the threshold. It helps me identify which questions to ask and which of my six doctors I should address about each report. This has transformed the way I’m able to manage my care. Step-by-step: 1. I gave ChatGPT access to my medical history. 2. I used it to review my test results and prioritize questions about my health. 3. I asked it to look at a recent lab report showing a low platelet count. 4. ChatGPT reviewed six years of results and showed that my platelet count had consistently been low, with the latest result below the threshold. 5. I used the information to identify which questions to ask and which of my six doctors to contact about the report.

Clean up near-duplicate artwork photos with a visual checklist THE PROBLEM I had hundreds of photos of my handmade collages. Some showed the same work photographed at different times, from different angles or against different backgrounds. Others were cropped versions, detail shots or useful making-of photos. The duplicate finder in my image manager missed real matches and suggested unrelated collages instead. Simply keeping one file from each group would also have thrown away useful material. THE WORKFLOW 1. Export a working set and preserve the filenames. I exported the images from Eagle. Smaller copies made the collection easier to upload, while the original-resolution files stayed on my computer. Keeping the filenames intact made it possible to apply decisions to the originals later. 2. Ask AI to compare the artwork, not just the whole photograph. The comparison looked for matching local image details and their relative positions. This helped connect photos despite changes in angle and background. Candidate groups still needed review: two collages might contain the same clipping, and a detail photo might overlap with a wider shot without being redundant. 3. Turn the results into a visual decision page. The AI produced a standalone HTML file with photos grouped side by side and their original filenames underneath. I requested a “Keep” checkbox beneath each candidate and a category dropdown: “Collage” or “Making of”. Multiple images could stay in either category. One photo might show one part clearly while another preserved a different part better. I made the decisions; the AI did not choose a winner automatically. 4. Validate and export my choices. The page flagged any group with nothing selected and any selected photo without a category. Photos without a confirmed match were preserved separately. A download button exported my decisions as a small JSON file, which I sent back to the AI. 5. Generate a local cleanup script from that exact selection. The resulting Windows script checks the expected files, asks me to confirm the folder, sorts the retained photos into “collages”, “making of” and “loose items”, and sends rejected photos to the Recycle Bin. It targets the ordinary export folder, not Eagle’s internal library. The loose items can then be sorted manually before reimporting. WHAT THIS PRODUCED From 296 photos, the review grouped 204 into 90 candidate groups and left 92 without a confirmed match. My final choices retained 96 collage photos and 23 making-of photos, plus all 92 loose items: 211 retained, 85 designated for removal. The checklist and selection were completed, and the script was generated. At the time of writing, I had not yet run the cleanup on Windows. WHY IT HELPED The key was separating three jobs: finding likely matches, deciding what matters, and applying those decisions to files. “The same artwork” does not necessarily mean “an unnecessary photo”. A visual checklist let me make those distinctions without manually tracking filenames. STARTER PROMPT “I have photos of the same artwork taken from different angles and against different backgrounds. Find candidate matches using details within the artwork, and distinguish duplicates from details, changed versions and making-of photos. Create a standalone HTML review page with original filenames, a Keep checkbox and a category dropdown for each candidate. Allow multiple retained photos per category. Flag empty groups and selected photos with no category. Preserve unmatched images. Let me export my choices as JSON. After I return the selection, generate a script that validates the original filenames, sorts retained files into the chosen folders and moves only rejected files to the Recycle Bin after showing the target folder and counts. Do not choose or delete files on my behalf."

A finished video can be wrong in ways you cannot see—not because of the edit, but because of the delivery file itself. That is what gets work sent back, and it is rarely the craft. I built a delivery check for this. I give it a finished file, tell it where the file is going and what kind of piece it is, and it measures the things that cause rejections: sample rate, mono audio, integrated loudness against the destination target, true peak, dynamic range against a band rather than a single number, A/V drift, whether the shots cut together, and whether the file can stream before it has finished downloading. Most of those checks are for sound, because most of what gets sent back is sound. Picture problems are visible on a screen. A file that is 2 dB too quiet or peaks at -0.7 dBFS can look perfect and still come back. For everything it can fix, the checker gives me the exact `ffmpeg` command, with the numbers already calculated for that file. It does not merely describe the fix, and it does not hand me a corrected file. That was the decision that mattered. A fixer is a black box. You never learn that you had a problem, so you make it again the following week. Then, when your editing tool adds an “optimize on export” button, you have nothing. An inspector that explains the problem in one sentence and gives you the command teaches you the standard once and remains useful when the tools change. Three things determined whether I would actually use it, and none of them are checks. “Two severities, never one.” Something either bounces, or it needs your eyes. A tool that only says “bad” gets ignored on the third run, because half of what it flags is a decision you made on purpose. Sample rate, mono, and true peak bounce without argument, and they get a command. Loudness and dynamic range need to be reviewed first. My dynamic-range check says in plain words that the result is often deliberate and should be fixed at the source rather than in the master. “A check that refuses to give a verdict.” On vertical video, the platform interface covers the bottom 26 percent and the top 12 percent. I flag high-contrast elements in those zones but deliberately do not fail them, because the detector cannot tell a caption from a bright patch of sky. The report explains that limitation. A check admitting what it cannot know is what makes the checks that do commit worth trusting. “The thresholds are mine; the code only applies them.” They live in a table: destination crossed with content. Social wants -14 LUFS, a festival master wants -18 with a wider tolerance because festivals provide a band rather than a number, and broadcast wants -23. A scripted short is allowed to be denser than a screencast. That table is the whole product. For example, to catch shots that do not cut together, I measure the luminance range across the piece. The first version used average brightness per frame and kept flagging legitimate night photography. A fade to black has nothing bright in it; a night scene does—a streetlight, a moon, or a face. Changing the discriminant to the brightest pixel in the frame instead of the average eliminated the false positives. That took ten minutes of thinking, and no amount of better code would have found it. Step-by-step: 1. I wrote down what had actually gotten my work sent back over twenty years before writing any code. I captured the scars rather than making a spec sheet; that list became the product. 2. I gave every check a severity: it bounces, or look before you send. Anything I could not confidently put in one bucket became informational, with no verdict at all. 3. I made every check return four things: the measured value, pass or fail, why it matters in one plain sentence, and, where possible, the command that fixes it. 4. I put the thresholds in a profile table instead of hardcoding one standard, because -14 LUFS is right for social and wrong for a festival. 5. I added a parameter for whether the file is my own master or a copy pulled from a platform. On a downloaded copy, half the container checks measure someone else’s transcode rather than my work, so they are skipped and the report explains why. 6. When two fixes would collide, I output only one command. If loudness already needs a gain change, the limiter goes inside that command instead of being offered separately; otherwise, I would run two instructions that fight each other. 7. I tuned the checker against real files until the false positives stopped. Ignoring the top and bottom five percent of frames eliminated the ones caused by a single stray frame. 8. I made the output a report. I read it, decide, and run the command myself. The functions are an afternoon of work, and anyone can copy them. What is not written down is the list of what to check, at what threshold, and why.

Most businesses don't need another AI tool. They need to automate the repetitive bottleneck already slowing the team down. A simple example is connecting the tools already in use: Lead → AI qualification → CRM → WhatsApp → follow-up Instead of adding more software, automate the repetitive steps between these tools. The goal isn't more AI; it's less manual work and faster execution. Step-by-step: 1. Identify the repetitive bottleneck slowing the team down. 2. Capture the lead and use AI to qualify it. 3. Send the qualified lead to the CRM. 4. Use WhatsApp for follow-up. 5. Connect the steps so the process requires less manual work and supports faster execution.

I tried using Claude and it lost context of the whole project quickly and became a nightmare of human in the loop meat proxying. It made the exercise far from autonomous.

My mom and I love trying new recipes together, but our best dishes rarely turn out exactly like the original recipe. She adds a little more garlic, I suggest a different spice, and by the time we sit down to eat, neither of us remembers what we changed. 😂 I started using ChatGPT as our cooking journal. After we make something, I send it a photo of the dish and a quick voice note about what we used, what we changed, and what we’d do differently next time. ChatGPT turns those notes into a recipe we can make again while preserving our comments and the story behind the meal. Now, when we’re deciding what to cook, I can ask for a favorite we haven’t made in a while, a recipe that uses what’s in the fridge, or a shopping list for our next cooking day. It’s becoming a collection of our recipes and the time we’ve spent making them together. ❤️ Step-by-step: 1. I created one place to keep our recipes, with space for ingredients, steps, photos, ratings, and notes. 2. Each time my mom and I cook, I take a photo and record a short voice note about the changes we made. 3. I ask ChatGPT to turn our notes into a clear recipe and flag any measurements we forgot to record. 4. I review the recipe with my mom, fill in the missing details, and save the version we actually made. 5. We add what we liked, what we’d change, and any memories from that cooking day. 6. When we want to cook again, I ask ChatGPT to find a recipe, adapt it to the ingredients we have, or make a shopping list.

I’m a nurse with no tech experience, but I’m curious and have many creative ideas. I used Claude to build a website that helps people plan which vegetables to grow based on their location, available space, and the time they have. Veggiegrowguide.com Step-by-step: 1. I identified an idea for helping people choose vegetables to grow based on their location, available space, and available time. 2. I used Claude to help me build a website for the idea. 3. I created Veggiegrowguide.com as a resource for people planning their vegetable gardens.

Planning a trip often meant piecing together information from a dozen different places. I might save inspiration from Instagram Reels and carousels, bookmark useful links in my browser, receive booking confirmations as PDFs from different platforms, and have tickets spread across emails and travel apps. By the time the trip got closer, I had all the information I needed—but no easy way to see it together or turn it into a coherent plan. I recently started using an AI travel tool called Mindtrip to solve this. It’s free and brings my saved content, links, bookings, PDFs, and tickets into one place. Mindtrip uses AI to understand the context and organize everything into a single trip, including the tips and hacks in Instagram Reels. It then creates a day-by-day itinerary based on what I’ve saved, liked, and booked. I have one place to see, manage, and adjust my entire trip instead of constantly switching between different sources. It also provides reminders and checklists based on my plans, along with a map view of where I’m supposed to be going. Step-by-step: 1. I saved travel inspiration from Instagram Reels and carousels, bookmarked useful links, and collected booking confirmations, PDFs, and tickets from different platforms, emails, and travel apps. 2. I brought the saved content, links, bookings, PDFs, and tickets into Mindtrip. 3. Mindtrip used AI to understand the context and organize everything into a single trip, including tips and hacks from Instagram Reels. 4. I used the resulting day-by-day itinerary, based on what I had saved, liked, and booked. 5. I used Mindtrip’s reminders, checklists, and map view to manage and adjust the trip in one place.

I have tried many AI Tools however - I feel the time I Input data and effort into schedulign and resourcing is the problem - I need a Fix or a rubust reliable AI workflow so i can buy my time back. Any suggestions?

Turn scattered creative preferences into four living style books THE PROBLEM My taste was scattered across old conversations, clothing lists, search terms, saved images, handmade collages and experiments transforming my childhood drawings with AI. I wanted something I could use to make new work, rather than another archive of everything I had ever mentioned. A generic label like “colourful and whimsical” was not enough. My preferences also change with the application: a collage, an outfit, a room and a digital course do not need the same treatment. THE WORKFLOW 1. Bring together different kinds of source material. I used an earlier style conversation, a digital design style document, a list of search terms, photos of my own collages and the corrections I had made during image-generation experiments. Ask AI to read source texts fully, and distinguish your statements from suggestions made by an earlier assistant. 2. Analyse patterns, then correct the interpretation. The AI proposed connections involving colour, texture, shape, atmosphere, vintage objects and visual storytelling. I refined these through concrete examples. For instance, liking stilettos and being able to wear them comfortably are separate facts. Liking geometric structures does not mean I want triangular wallpaper. A technically imperfect image can still work when it preserves the atmosphere I intended. 3. Treat corrections as part of the research. “Too childish” may mean wrong for this drawing’s intended audience, rather than a universal dislike. A saved image may be intriguing without being something I want to keep encountering. An entire family of similar images may appeal to me without needing to rank every member. One especially useful correction: patterns visible in my collages do not prove I consciously planned them. I sort clippings into categories and sometimes colour groups; the collage itself develops while I make it. 4. Include my own categories. My clipping categories include texture, image, black-and-white, colour, background, small meaningful items, comics and words. “Colour” means a clipping kept mainly for its colour, not simply any colour photograph. “Texture” includes both natural surfaces and designed patterns. These definitions provided better starting points than generic categories imposed by the AI. Digital design and graphics also received a full category of their own, rather than being treated as an exception to my taste elsewhere. 5. Create four distinct outputs. • Style Book: precise preferences, boundaries, exceptions and provisional design principles. • Visual Atlas: image families connected across subjects, with actual examples and explanations of what might link them. • Prompt Bible: modular language for colour, material, light, composition, figures and atmosphere, plus reusable recipes and lessons from corrections. • Curatorial Map: connections between interests such as vintage objects, memory, surfaces, small living worlds, language and digital design. 6. Keep the books open to revision. Separate confirmed preferences, observations and hypotheses. When new material arrives, ask what it confirms, refines or contradicts. Add what changes the understanding instead of documenting every conversation. WHAT THIS PRODUCED Four separate first-draft HTML books, including a visual atlas with 14 photographs of my collages. They bring clothing, interiors, fragrance, digital design and creative work into the same research project while preserving their different requirements. WHY IT HELPED The process made my corrections useful. Instead of asking AI to define my taste once, I could respond to concrete interpretations until the descriptions became more accurate. The books support future making without prescribing how I must create. STARTER PROMPT “Use these sources to draft four separate living documents: a personal Style Book, a Visual Atlas, a modular Prompt Bible and a Curatorial Map of Fascinations. Read the source texts fully and distinguish my own statements from earlier AI suggestions. Find recurring patterns, exceptions and unexpected connections. Keep preferences specific to their application, including clothing, interiors, digital design and graphics. Treat my corrections as evidence. Label observations and hypotheses clearly, and do not invent conscious intentions behind intuitive work. Use supplied images in the atlas where available. Build useful first drafts rather than a complete archive, and translate each finding differently for each document’s purpose.”

I used Astra to redesign my personal wardrobe. I want to dress better, but my absolute worst nightmare is having a closet full of clothes that creates more clutter in my brain. I already have enough to think about, so I built an app that decides what I should wear based on the season and local weather using GPT-6 Astra. I gave it a few full-body photos, my height, weight, sizes, and niche details such as having broad shoulders and needing to tailor my waist. I also shared the colors I like, added a master prompt, and asked it to build a site. The results were incredible. I'm the model in every photo, and Astra's virtual try-on is genuinely impressive. If I can't find a piece online, I update the model and regenerate the pictures. Step-by-step: 1. I opened ChatGPT desktop with GPT-6 Astra and Codex/Sites, then turned on Computer Use and image generation. 2. I started a new chat and uploaded four to eight full-body photos, one clear face photo, and closet photos when available. 3. I pasted the prompt below, filled in my name, city, and sizes, and let it work for one to two hours. 4. I sent a couple of correction passes instead of rebuilding the whole system. I removed things I would never wear and added things I actually wear. PROMPT: GOAL Build a working website called [YOUR NAME]'s Wardrobe. It blends two things: 1) A closed uniform system of exactly 30 looks 2) A personalized shopping portal where I am the model in every photo, Aritzia/Uniqlo catalog quality (seamless studio backdrop, full-body try-on, product-card grid) SITE NAME [YOUR NAME]'s Wardrobe THE ONLY INVENTORY - 7 summer outfits - 7 fall outfits - 7 winter outfits - 7 spring outfits - 1 gym outfit - 1 lounge outfit = 30 looks. Nothing else. Each look is complete: top + bottom or one-piece + shoes + at most 2 extras. Reuse pieces across the 7 looks in a season. Cap unique garments at 35–50 including shoes and outerwear. Throw everything else out. WHO I AM - Name: - Lives: [city] - Height: - Weight: - Sizes (top / bottom / shoe): - Body notes: - Work dress code: - Weekend life: - Style in 5 words: - Colors that work / colors I refuse: - Budget for gap-filling buys: - Hard constraints: Attached photos are the identity lock. Reproduce my real face AND real body in every try-on. Do not slim, lengthen, or beautify me. LIVE WEATHER (required, not a mock) On every page load, fetch live weather for [CITY] from Open-Meteo with no API key. Use the correct lat/long and timezone. Show on the homepage: - “Today in [CITY]” - apparent temperature, condition, rain yes/no - ONE recommended look from the 30 - why that look won - 1 weather swap (if rain starts / if it drops 5°C) Selection logic: - apparent temp ≥ 20°C and dry → Summer pool - 15–19°C dry → Spring pool Mar–May, Fall pool Sep–Nov, otherwise the closer season - 8–14°C → Fall pool, prefer the look that already includes a mid-layer - ≤ 7°C → Winter pool - rain now or daily precipitation ≥ 1mm → jacket + closed shoes, no white sneakers or silk - wind ≥ 25 km/h → prefer a layer - gym / lounge days use those uniforms, add a layer only if ≤ 10°C Never invent an outfit outside the 30. SITE STRUCTURE - Home: today + try-on + wear-this checklist - Summer / Fall / Winter / Spring: 7 look cards each, me wearing the full look - Gym / Lounge - Pieces: every unique garment on me, marked OWNED or BUY - Purge: sell / donate / trash for anything not in the system - Rotation: 4-week calendar per season. Weather can override, but it still has to be one of the 7 (or gym/lounge) VISUAL BAR Premium catalog photography. Gray/white seamless, even light, full body. Do not clone another brand’s logo. This is [YOUR NAME]'s Wardrobe. HOW TO BUILD Step-by-step: 1. Build the 30 looks from my photos, stats, climate, and closet photos. Use owned pieces first. 2. Generate consistent try-ons of me for every look and every piece. 3. Build a real clickable site. Hook live weather. Do not fake it. 4. If an image breaks my face or body, regenerate it before shipping. 5. No payments. Personal wardrobe OS only. OUTPUT Live site, the 30 looks, piece list (owned vs buy), ranked shopping list, purge list, weather mapping, and what you inferred vs what came from my photos. Start now. Make the call if a detail is missing. Only ask if the photos are unusable.

I record calls with Granola and paste the transcript into Claude, but the action items it pulls are hit or miss. Sometimes it skips things that were clearly decided and sometimes it invents owners. I tried asking for a table with owner and due date but it still guessed. Looking for a prompt or workflow that's reliable enough I can trust it without rereading the whole transcript.

What do you do when your wife says you talk about AI too much? You listen to her, and when she has a problem, you frantically write it down and build it with AI. My wife enjoys working with her plants in the warm sun and light breeze of the Carolina mountains. She’s new to gardening and learning more each day, but she was having trouble keeping track of everything. Which tree did she plant in the front yard last year? It seemed to be struggling—would it do better somewhere else? And would rain reach the potted flowering planters while we were out of town, or would she need to find someone to help? I used Claude Code and Fable to develop an app that my wife could run on her phone, with all the data stored locally. Now she’s excited about “her app” and the things she can add to it. She has even shared it with others, including people across the country, so we added climate zone settings to make it useful in other parts of the country. 😂 Step-by-step: 1. I listened to my wife’s gardening challenges and wrote down the problems she wanted to solve. 2. I used Claude Code and Fable to develop a gardening app for her phone. 3. I designed the app to keep all the data stored locally. 4. I built in a way to track plants, including which tree was planted in the front yard and how it was doing. 5. I accounted for questions about rain and the care of potted flowering planters while we were out of town. 6. After my wife shared the app with people across the country, I added climate zone settings so it could be useful in other regions.