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

I write science fiction and use ChatGPT to make sure my stories stay within certain rules. I use Willow Voice AI for dictation and video generators to create proof-of-concept visuals. I also recently used AI to find quick answers within a 40-minute YouTube video. I turned it from watchbait into quick answers. Step-by-step: 1. I use ChatGPT to check that my science-fiction stories stay within certain rules. 2. I use Willow Voice AI to dictate my writing. 3. I use video generators to create proof-of-concept visuals. 4. I use AI to find quick answers within a 40-minute YouTube video. 5. I turn the video from watchbait into quick answers.

I built an AI orchestrator called ADT (Agent-Dev-Team) that sits over Claude Code and GitHub and drives each step of the development pipeline: the ticket, the Definition of Done, the build, the quality check, and the cost. It contains around 6,000 lines of Python and prose and is open-sourced here: https://github.com/zurichrich/ai-orchestrator-adt I had been building with Claude for over nine months, so I documented what goes wrong when an agent receives a real problem. It can overcomplicate or duplicate work, or build the wrong thing. It builds quickly, but with questionable quality. I realized this is not necessarily a model problem: give any capable agent—or human—a vague ticket, and it can build the wrong thing quickly and confidently. Coding agents made implementation cheap, so the bottleneck moved upstream to planning. Planning was still me, typing prompts and becoming the slowest part of my own setup. I also became less focused by GitOps processes, with multiple parallel sessions colliding, so I needed a tool to remove that friction. I built ADT with Claude and put it to work on itself and on other personal projects that are currently in development. Step-by-step: 1. I put the backlog next to the code. Tickets live in GitHub Issues and mirror to a local Markdown cache, so the agent reads and edits them with the same tools it uses for the code. This keeps the process fast, reduces guesswork about what the ticket means, and keeps the full history visible to everyone. Claude writes in tickets far more than humans do, so GitHub Issues become the knowledge base of the future. 2. I write the Definition of Done so a machine can check it: a command that exits with 0, rather than a paragraph of good intentions. If I cannot write that command, the ticket is not ready and the build should not start. 3. I let the ticket do three jobs. It is the specification, the prompt Claude works from, and the record afterward. Keeping one description of the work prevents the build from wandering away from what was requested. 4. I track token use and cost per ticket, so when a product owner asks what a feature cost, I can tell them. 5. I run ADT on itself and on other personal projects currently in development. The results are 46% better plan quality, 37% fewer bugs, and 15 agents running in parallel without colliding.

I use AI to turn my watch history into a personal recommendation engine that can answer situational questions such as, “What should I watch tonight?” Generic recommendation algorithms know what is popular and what resembles something I clicked before. They usually know much less about why I want to watch something tonight. For this workflow, I give AI two different datasets: - Already watched: Evidence of my actual viewing history and taste. - Want to watch: Shows my curiosity, intentions, and unexplored directions. This should not automatically be treated as proof that I will like something. AI analyzes both lists for patterns such as genre, themes, emotional intensity, pacing, humor, visual atmosphere, storytelling style, cultural interests, darkness versus comfort, realism versus imagination, and other recurring preferences. Instead of reducing everything to genres, the workflow builds a descriptive taste profile. It keeps confirmed preferences separate from hypotheses based on the watchlist and uses my later reactions to refine the profile. When I want a recommendation, I add my current context: available time, mood, energy, desired emotional intensity, whether I want something comforting or challenging, and whether I want a movie or an episode. The system matches that temporary context against my longer-term taste profile and the available watchlist. So instead of asking: > “Recommend me a good series.” I can ask: > “I have about 90 minutes, my brain is tired, I want something comforting but not stupid, and I don't want anything emotionally brutal tonight.” The recommendation is based on three layers at once: past taste, future curiosity, and present state. Over time, the system becomes less like a recommendation list and more like a personal cultural navigation tool. Step-by-step: 1. I import or paste my watched films and series. 2. I add a separate list of things I still want to watch. 3. I ask AI to analyze recurring themes and less obvious connections. 4. I build a descriptive taste profile rather than reducing everything to genres. 5. I keep confirmed preferences separate from hypotheses based on the watchlist. 6. I use my later reactions to refine the profile. 7. When choosing something to watch, I add the current context, including available time, mood, energy, desired emotional intensity, whether I want something comforting or challenging, and whether I want a movie or an episode. 8. I match that temporary context against my longer-term taste profile and the available watchlist.

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 connected Claude Code to my WordPress website through MCP and used it to update hundreds of existing posts. It searched for custom fields, extracted the relevant data, and saved many hours of repetitive human work. Step-by-step: 1. I connected Claude Code to my WordPress website through MCP. 2. I used it to work through hundreds of existing posts. 3. I had it look for custom fields and extract the relevant data. 4. I used the extracted data to update the posts, replacing repetitive manual work with a repeatable process.

Like many people, I had tasks scattered across emails, meeting notes, reminders, recurring responsibilities, and things I was simply trying to remember. Standard task managers helped me store tasks, but they did not solve the harder problem: turning unstructured information into a reliable daily and weekly execution system. I used ChatGPT Work and Codex to build a private, responsive task management application around the way I actually work. The system combines AI-assisted task capture with a Command Center, daily planning, weekly reviews, task lists, a Kanban board, recurring tasks, deadline reminders, search, filters, subtasks, comments, attachments, and a complete activity history. The most useful part is the connection between AI and execution. Emails and free-text descriptions can be interpreted with the OpenAI API and converted into structured tasks, reducing the amount of manual copying and organizing required. Step-by-step: 1. I mapped my real workflow by identifying where my tasks came from and what information I needed to manage them properly: title, description, status, priority, category, deadline, responsible person, subtasks, comments, attachments, recurrence, and activity history. I deliberately designed the system around my existing working habits rather than adapting my work to a generic task management template. 2. I used iterative conversations with ChatGPT Work and Codex to define the requirements, review the interface, build the application, test it, and refine individual functions. Instead of creating one enormous prompt, I worked in short cycles: describe a problem, implement the change, test it with real data, and improve it. 3. I built the application as a responsive web app that works across computers, tablets, and phones. Access is restricted through authentication, an approved-user allowlist, and server-side authorization because the system contains real personal and professional tasks. 4. I migrated my actual task history rather than starting with an empty demonstration: 238 tasks, 37 categories, 25 subtasks, 5 comments, and 671 activity records. I preserved invalid or disconnected historical records in a separate archive instead of silently deleting them. 5. I connected the application to the OpenAI API. The AI can interpret emails and free-text task descriptions and help turn them into structured, actionable tasks. The application also supports an email-to-task workflow, so actionable emails do not have to remain buried in the inbox. 6. I built a daily Command Center that gives me an overview of what requires attention, including deadlines, priorities, task status, and upcoming work. I use the daily planning view to decide what to focus on rather than simply working through the newest emails. 7. I added two complementary execution views. The task list is useful for searching, sorting, and filtering a larger number of tasks. The Kanban board gives me a visual overview of progress; tasks can be dragged between five status columns, and the new status is saved automatically. The default task list shows the newest tasks first, making newly captured work easy to find. 8. I kept the context inside each task by allowing every task to contain subtasks, comments, attachments, and a complete activity history. This keeps the reasoning, follow-up, and progress connected to a task instead of spreading them across several applications. 9. I automated recurring work and reminders. Recurring tasks are recreated according to their schedule, while deadline reminders help surface tasks before they become overdue. This is particularly useful for responsibilities that are important but easy to forget because they do not arrive as new emails. 10. I run a weekly review to check overdue work, upcoming deadlines, open commitments, and tasks that have stopped moving. I can then reprioritize, update statuses, and prepare the following week from the same system. 11. I preserved portability and control through Excel import and export and a full JSON backup. This gives me control over my information and reduces the risk of becoming dependent on one interface or platform. The result is not an autonomous agent making decisions on my behalf. It is a private execution system where AI handles part of the interpretation and structuring, while I remain responsible for priorities and decisions. It has given me one trusted place for capturing, reviewing, prioritizing, and completing work. The tools I used were: - ChatGPT Work - Codex - OpenAI API

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 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’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.

The content, business plan, and trajectory is established. Coding and execution is the precise matter that is required. I lack coding skills, and have yet to acquire a proper coder to fit the context.

I’m a very unsophisticated user—and an older man—so my use of ChatGPT is still fairly basic. But it has changed my life. I use ChatGPT as a research assistant for a book I’m writing. In practice, what I do is not much more than an in-depth search, but ChatGPT has taken me places in this journey that I would have thought impossible just three months ago. We’re now deeply engaged in solid research that will likely last about two years before we reach the writing phase. I’m energized by what we’re doing and wanted to share the experience. I believe AI is going to change the way working historians conduct research. Step-by-step: 1. I use ChatGPT as a research assistant for the book I’m writing. 2. I use it for in-depth searching and research. 3. I continue developing the research with ChatGPT over an expected two-year period before beginning the writing phase. 4. I reflect on how this process is changing my research journey and the way historians may conduct research.

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”

Tell AI the Real Goal, Not Just the Scorecard THE PROBLEM When we give AI a task, we often describe success through measurable criteria: be fast, minimize errors, use fewer resources, produce a certain format, reach a quality score, or complete a list of steps. Those criteria are useful, but they are usually not the actual goal. A high score matters because it is supposed to indicate that the AI is doing something useful. Efficiency matters because we want to achieve something without wasting resources. A specific layout matters because someone needs to use the result afterwards. If the proxy becomes more important than the purpose behind it, the AI can technically satisfy the instructions while missing what we actually wanted. So I started making the hierarchy explicit. THE WORKFLOW Before a substantial task, I explain four things: Step-by-step: 1. The real goal What am I ultimately trying to accomplish? 2. Why that goal matters What function should the result serve in the real world? 3. The success criteria What signals, scores, constraints or output requirements help us judge whether we are getting there? 4. The important distinction Those criteria are indicators of success, not the goal themselves. Then, before execution, I usually ask for a short non-technical plan in plain language. Not code. Not internal terminology. Not a wall of implementation detail. I want the AI to explain: - what it thinks I am trying to achieve - what steps it plans to take - in what order - what it expects each step to accomplish - where it sees possible problems or ambiguity - what the final result should look like - where it will show me intermediate results before continuing That last point matters. For larger tasks, I do not want one giant jump from instruction to finished output. I want the AI to build in intermediate checkpoints with actual results. That can mean: - showing the first batch before processing the rest - giving a sample classification before applying it to hundreds of items - sharing an early pattern it found before building the full analysis around it - showing the structure of a document before filling every section - reporting that a planned step produced an unexpected result before silently adapting everything downstream The checkpoint should contain something useful enough to evaluate. Not just: «Step 2 completed.» But rather: «I processed the first 50 items. Most fit the categories we expected, but 12% fall into a pattern we did not account for. Here are three examples and how I suggest handling them.» That lets me see whether the task is still heading toward the actual goal. For example, my instruction might be: «The real goal is X. We care about Y because it helps achieve X. Z is a useful metric, but do not optimize Z at the expense of X. Before executing, explain in non-technical language how you plan to approach the task, step by step. Build useful intermediate results into the plan so I can inspect the direction before too much work depends on it. Flag anything that seems likely to satisfy the metric while undermining the actual purpose.» I can then say: «Yes, that is what I mean.» Or: «No, step 3 is where you are misunderstanding me.» And later: «This first batch looks right. Continue.» Or: «Stop here. The pattern you found changes how I want the rest handled.» Correcting a five-line plan or an early sample is much cheaper than correcting an entire finished workflow, analysis or file operation. WHY I LIKE IT This turns the interaction from: instruction → execution → correction into: purpose → shared understanding → visible plan → intermediate results → adjustment → execution It also helps me learn how the AI works. I do not need to understand every technical mechanism underneath it, but I do want a usable mental model of how it approaches problems. Over time, that makes collaboration easier because I get better at giving instructions, spotting misunderstandings early and knowing where extra context will matter. Intermediate results also make autonomy safer. The AI does not need permission for every tiny action, but it should avoid disappearing into a long chain of dependent decisions when an early misunderstanding could invalidate everything that follows. This can reduce unnecessary work, wasted compute and repeated corrections. The AI can still work independently once the direction is clear. The point is not to micromanage the process. The point is to make sure we are optimizing the right thing, travelling by a route we both understand, and checking occasionally that we are still on that route. A metric is a thermometer. The goal is to make the room warm, not merely to make the thermometer say 21°C.

I built SITREP, a self-hosted AI RSS reader that turns roughly 30 articles a day into a single briefing I can act on. It runs in a Docker container on my home NAS, ingests full article text instead of the teasers most feeds provide, and uses OpenAI embeddings to collapse the same story reported by five outlets into one item. Every morning, it writes “The Brief” with the sections Headline, Defense & Aerospace, AI & Tech, and Elsewhere, followed by the two sections I care about most: Implications for my company and Personal Leverage. Each section includes numbered citations linking back to the source articles. SITREP only proposes leverage when the evidence supports it. It also uses a curated, non-sensitive profile of my business lanes and priorities, synced from my Obsidian vault, so its recommendations are specific to my work as a defense-industry VP rather than generic advice. I can select Update Brief at any time during the day to regenerate the briefing in place with a timestamp. Step-by-step: 1. I run SITREP in a Docker container on my home NAS. 2. I have it ingest the full text of roughly 30 articles each day rather than relying on feed teasers. 3. I use OpenAI embeddings to identify and combine the same story when it is reported by multiple outlets, including cases where five outlets cover it. 4. Each morning, SITREP generates “The Brief” with the sections Headline, Defense & Aerospace, AI & Tech, and Elsewhere. 5. It adds Implications for my company and Personal Leverage, using my curated, non-sensitive business profile and priorities synced from Obsidian. 6. It includes numbered citations to the source articles and proposes leverage only when the evidence supports it. 7. I select Update Brief during the day when needed, and SITREP regenerates the briefing in place with a timestamp.

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 built a self-hosted wine cellar app that runs in a Docker container on my home NAS and doubles as a personal AI sommelier. I add a bottle by taking a photo of its label with my iPhone. A vision model identifies the wine, vintage, region, and grape varieties, while a second model estimates its market value and writes tasting and pairing notes. The app renders a visual map of my rack, so I can see exactly where each bottle is and pull one without hunting. My ratings feed a taste profile built from my own history, which the AI sommelier chat uses to answer questions such as what to open with dinner or which bottles are drinking at their peak. The feature I use most is Scan & Check. When I’m in a store, I photograph a bottle and get a Collection Fit score based on my profile before buying it. The app also exposes an MCP endpoint, so Claude can search my cellar, score a wine, or list my top-rated bottles from any conversation. I built it almost entirely with Claude Code and use it daily from my phone. Step-by-step: 1. I run the wine cellar app in a Docker container on my home NAS. 2. I photograph a bottle’s label with my iPhone when adding it to the collection. 3. A vision model identifies the wine, vintage, region, and grapes, and a second model estimates market value and generates tasting and pairing notes. 4. I use the app’s visual rack map to locate bottles by slot. 5. I rate wines so the app can build a taste profile from my history. 6. I use the AI sommelier chat to choose what to open, including bottles that are drinking at their peak. 7. I use Scan & Check in stores to photograph potential purchases and review their Collection Fit score. 8. I connect to the app’s MCP endpoint so Claude can search my cellar, score wines, and list my top-rated bottles from a conversation.

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.

I built a workflow that turns the wines I drink into a personal AI wine journal and sommelier that learns my taste over time. I created a master Google Sheet as the database. It includes the wine, vintage, region, grape varieties, price, rating, food pairing, where I drank it, who I was with, whether I would buy it again, and my own comments. Whenever I drink a wine, I send ChatGPT a photo of the bottle and a voice note with my reaction. I do not try to sound like a wine expert; I simply describe what I actually thought. ChatGPT identifies the wine, structures the information, preserves my original words, and adds the experience to the journal. Over time, ChatGPT uses my previous ratings and comments to understand my palate and make recommendations specifically for me. I can show it a restaurant wine list or a few bottles in a shop and ask which I am most likely to enjoy. I can also tell it what I am cooking and ask which bottle from my collection I should open. I record the context and memories around each bottle, so the system is gradually becoming both a wine database and a personal diary. Step-by-step: 1. I created a master Google Sheet to store details about each wine, including the vintage, region, grape varieties, price, rating, food pairing, location, company, whether I would buy it again, and my comments. 2. Whenever I drink a wine, I take a photo of the bottle and send ChatGPT a voice note describing my reaction in my own words. 3. ChatGPT identifies the wine, structures the details, preserves my original comments, and adds the experience to the journal. 4. I record the context and memories associated with each bottle. 5. As the journal grows, ChatGPT uses my ratings and comments to build a better understanding of my palate. 6. I ask ChatGPT for personalized recommendations from restaurant wine lists, bottles in shops, or my own collection based on what I am cooking.

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.