Workflow Hub

I record a meeting on my phone and send the audio file to my Telegram chat with Hermes, my local AI agent. That is the only trigger—there is no app, upload page, or extra step. Hermes runs on my PC through WSL and handles the rest locally, except for the LLM analysis. Step-by-step: 1. Send the audio via Telegram. I drop the meeting recording into my Telegram chat with Hermes. 2. Create the meeting record. When Hermes receives the audio message, it calls a FastAPI endpoint at `localhost:8200`. The endpoint creates a meeting record and uploads the file. It is a thin Python server backed by SQLite, using async SQLAlchemy. 3. Transcribe the meeting locally. The backend runs faster-whisper on my PC, so there is no cloud transcription API or transcription cost. It handles large files and produces the full text with timestamped segments. 4. Identify the speakers. A diarization pass determines who spoke when. I can optionally upload a 10-second voice sample for each person; the system stores MFCC features and can automatically label speakers such as “Steve” and “Andrew” in future meetings. Diarization is best-effort, so transcription still works if it fails. 5. Analyze the transcript with an LLM. The transcript and timestamped segments are sent to DeepSeek through the OpenRouter API. A single structured prompt extracts: - A TL;DR - Thematic topic groups - Decisions made - Open questions - Risks flagged - A participant list - Tags - Proposed action items, each with an owner, priority, due date, confidence score, source timestamp, and the exact transcript quote it came from 6. Send action items to the todo app. Each proposed task has a Create in Todo button. With one click, I send it to my separate local `agent-native-todo` service on port `8100`, along with the meeting title, evidence quote, and timestamp as context. The todo app runs independently; the meeting app only calls its REST API. 7. Review everything in the web miniapp. The results appear in a React SPA at `/miniapp/`, which includes a meeting list, FTS5 full-text search, transcripts with clickable timestamps that jump to the corresponding point in the audio, color-coded tasks, speaker name editing, and audio playback with seek. The stack is: - Backend: Python FastAPI, async SQLAlchemy, and SQLite - Transcription: faster-whisper, installed with `pip install faster-whisper` - Diarization: pyannote.audio or a similar tool; optional because transcription works without it - LLM: OpenRouter API with DeepSeek, using one structured prompt and JSON mode - Frontend: React, Vite, and plain CSS without a framework - Agent glue: Hermes Agent receives Telegram messages and orchestrates the API calls - Todo integration: Any task app with a REST API; the meeting app only needs to POST to it The only part that costs money is the LLM analysis step, which costs about $0.01 per meeting through DeepSeek. Everything else runs on my PC.

I had a ChatGPT subscription that I knew I would not use during the coming month, so I wanted to find a productive use for the tokens I would otherwise pay for without using. I created a team of specialized agents on Raft that works persistently in the background. They continue working until all my allotted tokens are used, wait for the tokens to reset, and then continue. I assigned them a project: searching a stretch of LiDAR-mapped dense forest in Slovenia for archaeological discoveries. The agents scan the dataset for meaningful anomalies that could point to potential findings. Anything they identify will be handed over to the Slovenian authorities for further investigation. Even if they find nothing, that result is valuable in its own right. I encourage anyone with an idle AI subscription to use it for something beneficial. There are many publicly available datasets containing potential discoveries that no human would ever have time to examine manually. Step-by-step: 1. I identified a ChatGPT subscription that I would not be using during the coming month. 2. I created a team of specialized agents on Raft to work persistently in the background. 3. I configured the team to work until my allotted tokens were used, wait for the reset, and then continue. 4. I directed the agents to scan LiDAR data from a dense forest in Slovenia for meaningful anomalies. 5. I planned to hand any potential discoveries over to the Slovenian authorities for further investigation. 6. I treated a lack of findings as valuable information as well, since the dataset would still have been examined.

I built a second workflow that scans my conversations daily for ideas worth developing, especially strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and thoughts that may have seemed minor when they first appeared. Instead of turning everything into tasks, it creates an incubator: a place where interesting material can remain dormant until it connects with something new. The daily scan looks for fragments with creative or exploratory potential. They do not need to be fully formed ideas. A small observation, an odd comparison, a half-finished concept, a recurring image, or a funny side remark can all be worth keeping if they might become meaningful later. Once a week, the incubator revisits the material collected during the previous days. That weekly revisit makes connections across separate conversations more visible. Something that looked isolated on Tuesday may suddenly echo a thought from Friday or fit a project that did not yet exist when the original idea appeared. The important part is that the incubator does not treat every interesting thought as something that must immediately become productive. Some ideas benefit from being left alone for a while. They can sit next to other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful only when a new context gives them meaning. The workflow is less about extracting the “best ideas” and more about preserving creative potential while allowing patterns to emerge gradually. It also surfaces unfinished experiments and research leads that I might otherwise forget, without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. That distinction matters to me: not everything valuable needs an action item. Some things are seeds, references, questions, jokes, aesthetic directions, or possible future worlds. Over time, the incubator becomes a kind of creative compost layer on top of the conversation archive: new material is gathered daily, revisited weekly, and allowed to combine into directions that would be difficult to plan deliberately. In simple terms: daily conversation scan → promising fragments → weekly revisit → emerging connections → incubation → later rediscovery and development The goal is not to force ideas into projects. It is to keep good material alive long enough for the right project to find it. Step-by-step: 1. I scan my conversations each day for strange connections, creative concepts, humor, research leads, unfinished experiments, and other fragments with creative or exploratory potential. 2. I preserve promising material in an incubator instead of immediately turning every item into a task. 3. I keep small observations, odd comparisons, half-finished concepts, recurring images, funny side remarks, seeds, references, questions, aesthetic directions, and possible future worlds—even when they are not fully formed. 4. I revisit the material collected during the previous days once a week. 5. I look for connections across separate conversations, including links between ideas that initially seemed isolated or between fragments and projects that did not yet exist. 6. I allow ideas to remain dormant, sit alongside other fragments, reappear in later conversations, or become useful when a new context gives them meaning. 7. I resurface unfinished experiments and research leads without turning the archive into a traditional task manager. 8. I let the material combine gradually so that new directions can emerge through later rediscovery and development.

Management pushed for an AI workflow to handle a massive daily headache: staff were manually searching for, copy-pasting, and moving hundreds of files listed in Excel. I was assigned to train the team to use the AI workflow. As soon as training started, though, it became clear that this was the wrong tool for the job. Forcing non-technical staff through a lengthy process of opening browsers, writing prompts, uploading spreadsheets, and dealing with token friction created more work than the manual process. It also introduced token costs, speed bottlenecks, and hallucination risks involving local file paths. The data was already structured. It did not need semantic intelligence; it needed deterministic speed. So AI got fired from running the task. Instead, I used AI as the developer. In less time than it would have taken to train one person, I had Gemini code a standalone Python desktop app and compile it into a simple executable. Now, with zero training required, staff drag and drop their Excel list into the app, choose a destination folder, and click Run. The app executes the transfers for hundreds of files, verifies every arrival on disk, and logs missing files in seconds. The result: $0 in API tokens, two hours recovered each day, zero path errors, and 100% team adoption. A two-second drag-and-drop will always beat a multi-step prompt-engineering exercise. As a side effect, the experience also supported AI adoption. Staff are now seeing more ways AI can help rather than hinder their work. Step-by-step: 1. I evaluated the proposed AI workflow for manually searching, copy-pasting, and moving hundreds of files from Excel lists. 2. I identified that training non-technical staff to open browsers, write prompts, upload spreadsheets, and manage token friction added more work, costs, bottlenecks, and local-file-path hallucination risks. 3. I used Gemini as the developer to create a standalone Python desktop app and compile it into a simple executable. 4. I had staff drag and drop their Excel list into the app, select a destination folder, and click Run. 5. The app transferred hundreds of files, verified each arrival on disk, and logged missing files in seconds. 6. I measured the results: $0 in API tokens, two hours recovered daily, zero path errors, and 100% team adoption.

My OpenClaw agent, Jugni, operates as a locally hosted, autonomous AI system running directly on my Mac mini instead of behind a traditional cloud-based web interface. Jugni’s architecture relies on several integrated components working together in the background.

Build a Self-Improving AI Meeting Protocol for Teams This workflow was inspired by a question Brooke Benson posted in the Rundown Hub about meeting transcripts that miss action items or assign them to the wrong person. That felt familiar because I used to take meeting minutes as a management assistant. I often had to ask: Who said this? Was it a decision or only a suggestion? Who owns this action? Was the deadline confirmed? As a human note-taker, I could ask the people in the room and summarize while listening. A speaker might say: “Maybe Friday, but that depends on Marc.” My notes might become: “Friday is tentative and depends on Marc.” A transcriber captures more, but it also captures the verbal spaghetti. So the problem is not only transcription quality. It is ambiguity. Instead of only asking AI to interpret a messy transcript afterwards, what if the meeting itself produced clearer signals? The system has four layers: Step-by-step: 1. Meeting grammar Speaking habits that clarify speakers, decisions, actions, ownership and uncertainty. 2. Team information Context about names, roles, responsibilities, terminology and decision scope. 3. Output template A fixed structure for the meeting report. 4. Feedback loop AI compares corrections with its previous output and suggests improvements. The meeting grammar should stay lightweight. At the start, each participant states their name and role. Name the next speaker when possible: “Marc, go ahead.” “Sofie, what do you think?” Unclear contributions can be restated: “So Marc, Friday is possible only if the technical review is complete. Correct?” Mark proposals, decisions and actions differently: Proposal: “I suggest we move the launch to Friday.” Decision: “We are moving the launch to Friday.” Action: “Marc will update the schedule by Wednesday.” Tentative action: “Marc may update it, pending confirmation.” At transition points, repeat what was agreed: “The decision is Friday.” “Marc owns the schedule update.” “The deadline is Wednesday.” Uncertainty should also be explicit: “Owner to confirm.” “Deadline is provisional.” “This is a proposal, not a decision.” The AI should receive these rules directly: - Treat explicit decision language as confirmed. - Do not assign an owner unless ownership is clear. - Label tentative deadlines as tentative. - Flag uncertain speakers instead of guessing. - Prefer later explicit summaries over earlier ambiguous wording. The AI should also receive team context: name, role, responsibilities, decision authority, terminology and communication patterns. Example: Pieter Vermeulen Operations Usually responsible for scheduling and logistics. Often uses tentative language for proposals. Only assign ownership when he explicitly confirms it. These notes should stay transparent and editable. People should be able to review, change or reject notes about their own communication patterns. The report should use a fixed structure: Meeting title Date Participants Main topics Decisions Action items Owner Deadline Status Open questions Risks or dependencies Items requiring confirmation TL;DR This can be built into a shared internal assistant. It receives the meeting grammar, team information, transcript and output template. It should be conservative about certainty: Owner unclear → “Owner to confirm” Suggested deadline → “Tentative deadline” Unknown speaker → “Speaker unclear” Discussed proposal → “Proposal discussed, not confirmed” A human still reviews speaker attribution, decisions, owners, deadlines and confirmed items. Then the corrected report is fed back to the AI: “Which errors came from unclear meeting signals? Which came from missing team context? Which came from your interpretation? What should be improved?” The AI can suggest updates to the meeting grammar or team information. Example: Error: Several people discussed a task, but nobody clearly accepted ownership. Suggested grammar update: “When assigning an action, confirm owner and deadline in one sentence.” Or: Observed pattern: “Pieter often says ‘we should’ when proposing something.” Suggested profile update: “Treat ‘we should’ as a proposal unless explicitly confirmed.” Profile changes should be reviewed before they are stored. The workflow: meeting → transcript → AI report → human correction → error analysis → grammar/team-context update → review → next meeting Over time, fewer errors should need correction because the system becomes easier to interpret. The division of labor is simple: The transcriber captures everything. Humans resolve meaning and ambiguity. AI structures, summarizes and detects patterns. AI output quality depends not only on the prompt, but on the signals the AI receives. Sometimes the best improvement is to reduce ambiguity before it reaches the model.

I use a persistent AI project-orchestration workflow for small-business operations, internal tools, AI-assisted coding, specialist-agent workflows, and projects that need to survive fresh sessions. A root AI receives one bounded objective, reads the project state from files, breaks the work into phases, and delegates implementation to bounded specialist or worker agents. It verifies the results, updates the durable state, and continues until the acceptance criteria are met. This lets me run small-business and coding projects end to end without re-explaining the project every session or manually driving every handoff. The core pattern is: Objective → durable state → root orchestrator → bounded workers → verification → state update → next step → Git checkpoint. Step-by-step: 1. I give the root AI one bounded objective. 2. The root AI reads the current project state from files. 3. It breaks the work into phases and delegates implementation to bounded specialist or worker agents. 4. It verifies the workers’ results. 5. It updates the durable project state. 6. It moves to the next step and creates a Git checkpoint. 7. It continues this cycle until the acceptance criteria are met.

I have Claude connected to all my communication platforms (Slack, Notion, calendars, Granola, etc) and pulls a morning brief for me each day. I've curated so it provides me an interactive page each day with call prep, priority tasks, recommendations of tools to use to solve XYZ, recap of activities overnight, etc. Step-by-step: 1. I connected Claude to the communication platforms I use, including Slack, Notion, calendars, and Granola. 2. I defined the sections I wanted every morning: call prep, priority tasks, overnight activity, and recommended tools. 3. I had Claude gather the relevant updates from each connected source. 4. I asked it to turn the result into an interactive page instead of a long unstructured message. 5. I refined the brief over time so it consistently surfaced the information I actually use.

I have a lot of calls, and follow-ups were the first thing to get lost once my day filled up. Granola notes helped, but I still had to remember to go back and read them. I connected Granola, Claude, and Notion, then set up a scheduled task in Claude. Every day at 6 p.m., it reviews that day’s Granola meeting notes, finds any to-do items or commitments I made, and creates them as tasks in my Notion to-do list. Step-by-step: 1. I connected Granola and Notion to Claude through Settings > Connectors. 2. I created a scheduled task with a prompt like: "Read today's Granola meeting notes. For each action item assigned to me, create a task in my Notion to-do database with the meeting name and date." 3. I set the task to run daily at the end of the day.

I created a data extraction and enrichment tool using a free Google Gemini account to write the necessary Python scripts. The tool extracts contact lists based on specific search criteria and enriches the contact details through API calls to Lusha. Step-by-step: 1. I used a free Google Gemini account to write the necessary Python scripts. 2. I applied specific search criteria to extract a list of contacts. 3. I enriched the contact details using API calls through Lusha.

I turned my company’s business continuity (BCEP) policy into an app that tracks storms, sends SMS updates, and automatically triggers policy actions. When a storm, tornado, or other emergency is reported within range of one of our office locations, the app sends SMS alerts to affected employees. It also triggers policy actions to prepare for office closures and safety check-ins, while maintaining an audit trail and compliance reporting. Step-by-step: 1. The app monitors reports of storms, tornadoes, and other emergencies within range of our office locations. 2. It identifies the affected employees and sends them SMS alerts. 3. It automatically triggers policy actions to prepare for office closures and safety check-ins. 4. It maintains an audit trail and generates reporting for compliance.

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

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.

It starts when someone clicks “Find My Best AI Opportunity” on my website. Instead of going straight to a booking page, they enter a short AI chat. The assistant asks about their work, business, main pain point, AI experience, urgency, name, and email. The workflow runs in n8n. Once the chat has enough information, it creates an AI Readiness Summary, saves the lead in Notion, sends me an internal brief, and emails the visitor their summary with a link to book a 30-minute call through Cal.com. The result is a better-qualified call: the visitor gets useful value first, and I have the context I need before we meet. Step-by-step: 1. A visitor clicks “Find My Best AI Opportunity” on my website. 2. The visitor completes a short AI chat about their work, business, main pain point, AI experience, urgency, name, and email. 3. n8n uses the collected information to create an AI Readiness Summary. 4. The workflow saves the lead in Notion and sends me an internal brief. 5. The visitor receives their summary by email, along with a link to book a 30-minute call through Cal.com. 6. I review the context before the call, making it better qualified.

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 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 have a Daily Brief agent on Codex with access to my Slack, Gmail, Notion, and Google Drive that checks everything that happened in the last 24 hours on request. It sends me the brief through Slack, and I do maybe 10% of the final manual editing. I also gave it several examples of before/after editing, so now it sends messages in my exact voice and style. Step-by-step: 1. I connected my Daily Brief agent in Codex to Slack, Gmail, Notion, and Google Drive. 2. I told it to review activity from the last 24 hours and pull out the items that actually needed attention. 3. I structured the output as a concise brief and had Codex deliver it through Slack. 4. I manually reviewed the draft and made the final edits before using it. 5. I gave the agent before-and-after examples of those edits so future briefs would sound more like my own voice.

I use Copilot to build an agent that critically reviews my internal audit work. I only need to upload a format. 1. I upload the format to Copilot. 2. I use Copilot to build an agent that critically reviews my internal audit work.

I built a workflow that prepares late invoice reminder emails for me. Our industry has tight margins, and our back end is rudimentary with limited capabilities, so sending these reminders was annoying, repetitive manual labor. I had Claude Cowork walk me through creating an agent that logs in every Monday night, checks our late AR, and compares the customer names against a Google Sheet list I created. It uses an email template I provided, adds the contact name from the Sheet, and includes each late invoice’s identifying number, amount, and due date. The agent puts the emails in my Drafts folder and emails me a report showing which customers were included, how much each one owes, and the totals. All I have to do is review the drafts, confirm everything looks good, and hit Send. This has saved me about an hour every Monday night of tedious, repetitive manual labor. Step-by-step: 1. I created a Google Sheet with the customer names and contact names. 2. I had Claude Cowork walk me through creating an agent that logs in every Monday night. 3. The agent checks our late AR and compares the customer names against the Google Sheet. 4. It uses my email template and adds the contact name, invoice identifying number, amount, and due date. 5. It places the completed emails in my Drafts folder. 6. It emails me a report listing the included customers, the amount for each, and the totals. 7. I review the drafts, confirm that everything looks good, and send them.

After a sales call, the conversation is only part of the work. Someone still needs to write the notes, update the CRM, remember the next step, prepare the follow-up email, and make sure the deal does not disappear between meetings. I wanted that entire post-call process to happen automatically. I created an Awish workflow that starts when a sales call ends. It analyzes the conversation, extracts the important sales information, updates the CRM, creates the next actions, drafts a personalized follow-up email, and sends the team a short summary. The workflow looks for the information I would normally write down myself: what the prospect needs, the objections they raised, their timeline, agreed next steps, and anything that could affect the deal. Customer-facing actions stay under my control. The workflow prepares the follow-up, but I can review important messages before they are sent. Step-by-step: 1. I tell Awish what I want to happen after every sales call: analyze the conversation, update the CRM, prepare the follow-up, and notify the team. 2. Awish understands the request, plans the workflow, and determines which applications are needed. 3. I connect my meeting platform, HubSpot, Gmail, and Slack to the automation. 4. When a call ends, the workflow analyzes the transcript and extracts the prospect’s needs, objections, timeline, decisions, and agreed next steps. 5. It creates or updates the contact and deal in HubSpot and adds any follow-up tasks that came out of the conversation. 6. It drafts a personalized Gmail follow-up based on what was actually discussed instead of using a generic sales template. 7. It sends a short Slack summary to the team with the deal status, important points, and next action. Instead of a sales call ending as a transcript or a page of notes, it immediately becomes structured CRM data, clear next actions, and a follow-up that is ready to review. The useful shift for me is that the workflow is not replacing the sales conversation. It is handling everything that normally gets forgotten or delayed after the call.