Workflow Hub

My doctor asked me to track my blood pressure for a month because it was on the high side before prescribing any medication. I initially recorded each reading manually in an Excel sheet, but after a few days, I wanted a simpler way to enter and manage the data. I uploaded the sheet to Claude Code and asked it to build a blood pressure tracking app. After the app was built, I hosted it on Netlify, used Supabase as the backend to save data for both my wife and me, and added it to my iPhone Home Screen. Step-by-step: 1. I started tracking my blood pressure in an Excel sheet as my doctor requested. 2. After several days of entering the readings manually, I uploaded the sheet to Claude Code. 3. I asked Claude Code to build an app for tracking blood pressure. 4. I hosted the app on Netlify. 5. I used Supabase as the backend to save blood pressure data for both my wife and me. 6. I saved the app to my iPhone Home Screen for easier access.

Turn a collection of documents, reports, spreadsheets, and notes into an evidence-backed decision brief with ChatGPT. Instead of asking AI to simply summarize the information, this workflow makes it identify what matters, connect the evidence, compare it with historical context, explore scenarios, and highlight what should be considered before making a decision. Step-by-step: 1. I gather the information relevant to one decision, including reports, PDFs, spreadsheets, research, historical data, meeting notes, and existing analysis. I upload everything into ChatGPT. 2. I ask ChatGPT to understand the situation using this prompt: > “Analyze the information I provided and build a structured understanding of the situation. Identify the key entities, important facts, relationships, metrics, trends, assumptions, and constraints. Do not make recommendations yet.” This creates the context before jumping to conclusions. 3. I build an evidence brief by asking: > “Create an evidence brief. Separate verified facts, derived insights, assumptions, conflicting information, and missing information. For every important conclusion, identify the supporting source or evidence.” This gives me a clearer picture of what is known versus what is inferred. 4. I add historical context when it is available by asking: > “Compare the current situation with the historical information provided. Identify meaningful patterns, similarities, differences, and changes. Highlight which historical observations could be relevant to the current decision.” This turns historical data into context rather than simply another report. 5. I explore three scenarios by asking ChatGPT: > “Based on the evidence and historical context, evaluate three scenarios: upside, base case, and downside. For each scenario, identify the assumptions, key drivers, risks, likely impact, and evidence supporting the assessment.” The objective isn't to pretend the future can be predicted perfectly. It is to understand how the decision changes when assumptions change. 6. I generate the decision brief by asking: > “Create a concise decision brief containing: > > 1. Current situation > 2. Most important evidence > 3. Key insights > 4. Historical context > 5. Critical assumptions > 6. Key risks > 7. Scenario analysis > 8. Evidence gaps and uncertainties > 9. Questions that should be investigated > 10. Possible actions and their implications. > Do not make the final decision on my behalf.” This produces a structured decision brief instead of another AI-generated summary. 7. I review the brief and challenge its conclusions before making the decision. I ask follow-up questions such as: > “Which assumption has the greatest impact on this decision?” > “Show me the strongest evidence against the current conclusion.” > “What information would most likely change the recommendation?” The AI helps structure the decision, but I make the decision. The important shift is: Summarize the information → Understand the situation → Establish the evidence → Add historical context → Explore scenarios → Evaluate the decision This approach can be applied to almost any domain where decisions depend on complex and interconnected information. A property investment is one example. A business strategy, product decision, operational problem, financial analysis, research question, or engineering decision can follow the same pattern.

I read the news every day, but it had become increasingly depressing and was making me miserable. What bothered me most was that it also felt inaccurate: although bad things are happening, there have been many positive developments over the past five years that rarely receive sustained coverage. Major news sites might publish an article or two about them, but those stories are quickly buried under negativity. I wanted a way to get only positive news stories in my feed each day. Keyword filters did not work: “record” and “breakthrough” also appear in stories about record wildfire seasons, while “war” can appear in “war ends.” Off-the-shelf sentiment analysis was not useful either. A happy press release about layoffs can be classified as positive, while a dry factual story about a disease being eliminated may be classified as neutral. So I trained a basic artificial version of my personality using a series of prompts about what I consider positive in the world. I connected it to Mistral through OpenRouter and gave it access to public RSS feeds from news sites I already trusted. This eventually became Rally News, which I published on Google Play. iOS has been more difficult. The app surfaces positive stories from more than 20 news sites in an endless scroll, giving me an alternative to my uncomfortable TikTok addiction. Because I made it public, I decided not to host article text: publishers keep their traffic and revenue, while the tool remains ethical. The system runs on a GitHub Actions cron job that pushes stories to a PHP and MySQL database. I built the app without coding experience for about $25 per month. Step-by-step: 1. I collected RSS feeds from established publishers I already trusted and stored the list as configuration. I started with about 10 feeds instead of a few hundred so I could realistically read the output. 2. I set up a scheduled GitHub Actions cron job to run a Python script that pulls new items from every feed. 3. I deduplicated incoming articles against the database using the URL and a normalized title. Syndicated stories frequently reappear under slightly different URLs, and I did not want to pay to evaluate the same article twice. 4. I wrote the filter prompt as a long persona document rather than a one-line instruction. It explains what I consider progress, what I consider a puff piece, and which cases should fail—for example, celebrity news is not good news, a company announcing an intention is not the same as taking action, and a local feel-good story without wider significance does not qualify. 5. I sent each new article to an LLM through OpenRouter and required JSON output containing a pass-or-fail decision and a short justification. 6. For the first few weeks, I read the justifications every day. Whenever I disagreed with the model, I added a new rule to the persona document. That review loop required nearly all of the actual work. 7. I wrote passing articles to MySQL with only the headline, source, link, and metadata, leaving the article body with the publisher. 8. I pointed the website and mobile app to the same database. 9. I added a second GitHub Actions job that assembles a daily newsletter from the same data through Brevo, allowing one evaluation pass to feed three surfaces.

Organic social content is one of the best sources of ideas for ads, so I built a workflow that finds short-form videos performing well in my niches, analyzes why they work, and rewrites the strongest hooks for my brand. Apify scrapes Instagram Reels by hashtag and TikTok videos by keyword across three niches: AI, productivity, and career growth. The workflow filters for English-language videos posted within the last 15 days that are 15–90 seconds long and have more than 50,000 plays. It then ranks them by engagement rate rather than views alone. A simple log file tracks every video I’ve already analyzed, so the workflow doesn’t process the same video twice. ElevenLabs transcribes each video’s audio. Claude then extracts the exact opening line, identifies the hook formula and video structure, and writes a version of the hook for my brand. Everything is compiled into one dated document with the top three discoveries, the strongest hook from the run, and any new patterns I haven’t tried yet. With one command—"Run research"—I get about 20 proven hooks and video structures to test in ads for less than $1 per run. Step-by-step: 1. I use Apify to scrape Instagram Reels by hashtag and TikTok videos by keyword across the AI, productivity, and career growth niches. 2. I filter the results for English-language videos posted within the last 15 days, 15–90 seconds long, with more than 50,000 plays. 3. I rank the remaining videos by engagement rate instead of views alone. 4. I check a log file to skip videos I’ve already analyzed. 5. I use ElevenLabs to transcribe each video’s audio. 6. I ask Claude to extract each video’s exact opening line, hook formula, and structure, then rewrite the hook for my brand. 7. I compile the results into one dated document with the top three discoveries, the strongest hook from the run, and new patterns to test. 8. I run the workflow with the command "Run research" to generate about 20 hooks and video structures for ad testing at a cost of less than $1 per run.

I built a running coach with Claude. After years of using apps to track runs, I wanted something closer to an actual coach instead of just a collection of data points. I opened a Claude Project, connected it to Google Calendar, and gave it standing instructions with real guardrails. It has been my coach for the last six months and has helped me avoid injury while increasing my monthly mileage. It plans my week, logs every run from my watch data, catches when I’m ramping up too quickly, tracks how close my shoes are to retirement, and rewrites my calendar when life disrupts my plans. Step-by-step: 1. I created a Claude Project called “Running Coach.” 2. I enabled the Google Calendar connector under Settings → Connectors so Claude could read my schedule and create or edit events directly. 3. I created personalized instructions based on the example prompt below and added them to the Project’s custom instructions. 4. I started the first chat by asking Claude to interview me and build a training plan. I answered questions about my injury history, current mileage, goals, and running terrain, then asked Claude to build out the calendar. 5. After each run, I send screenshots of my data directly into the chat, including distance, time, splits, average heart rate, cadence, elevation, and the shoes I wore. Claude logs the run, compares it with recent runs, and flags patterns. When adjustments are needed, Claude pushes the changes directly to Google Calendar, color-coded by run type, so the plan stays current without requiring me to reconcile a spreadsheet with reality. 6. At the end of each month, I have Claude summarize the chat, open a new one, and paste the summary into the new chat within the same Project. Staying in the same Project allows Claude to pick up months of history without requiring me to explain everything again. EXAMPLE PROMPT FOR INSTRUCTIONS: You are an expert running coach specializing in trail running, road racing, and safely building runners up to longer distances. Act like a real coach: be informative, point me in the right direction, and don't assume I know what I'm doing. Ask questions and make sure you have a full understanding before making any suggestions. HARD RULES — these are guardrails, not suggestions. Tell me when I'm violating one, even if I push back. - 80/20: roughly 80% of my weekly volume is easy, conversational effort. Only ~20% is hard. - Never increase weekly mileage more than 10% over the previous week. - Every 3rd or 4th week is a cutback week — cut volume by 20-30%. - Only one variable at a time: add distance OR intensity OR elevation in a given week. - Long run stays under ~30% of weekly volume. - Track mileage on each pair of shoes. Warn me at 300 miles, tell me to retire them by 400-500 depending on the model. - If I report pain that changes my gait, that's a stop — not a "run through it." Distinguish between normal training soreness and warning signs, and say which one you think it is. HOW TO COACH ME - Connective tissue adapts slower than cardio. When my fitness jumps, assume my tendons and joints haven't caught up, and hold me back accordingly. - At the start of each session, ask for a status update (energy, soreness, sleep, schedule changes) before proposing anything. - When I paste run data, log it and compare it to recent runs. Flag patterns, not one-offs: heart rate climbing ABOUT ME - Age and running experience: - Goal (a race, a distance, or just "build up safely"): - Current weekly mileage and longest recent run: - Days I can run / days that are always off: - Injury history and anything that flares up: - Terrain I have access to (roads, trails, elevation per mile, drive time to trails): - Max heart rate (if known):

I’m a 71-year-old retiree who never imagined artificial intelligence would become such a useful part of my everyday life. I affectionately call my ChatGPT assistant “Ally Wing.” One of our recent adventures involved my 2008 Honda CR-V. After a maintenance reminder appeared on my dashboard, I visited the Honda dealership. My vehicle was running fine, but I ended up paying $270 for a fuel system cleaning without fully understanding whether it was necessary. Later, I shared photos of my six-page service paperwork with ChatGPT. Ally Wing helped me understand the maintenance recommendations, distinguish necessary services from optional ones, and learn what questions to ask next time. We’ve also researched brake repairs, compared prices, and discussed how to evaluate repair shops. The greatest benefit hasn’t been saving money—although that’s certainly welcome. It’s gaining knowledge and confidence. Retirement doesn’t mean I’ve stopped learning. AI has given me another way to stay curious, independent, and informed. As Ally Wing and I jokingly agreed, “Next time we’re taking my Honda in for maintenance, not ordering everything on the menu!” 😂 -Irene Perez Step-by-step: 1. I noticed a maintenance reminder on my 2008 Honda CR-V’s dashboard and visited the Honda dealership. 2. I paid $270 for a fuel system cleaning, even though I wasn’t sure whether it was necessary. 3. I photographed the six-page service paperwork and shared the photos with ChatGPT, which I call “Ally Wing.” 4. I used ChatGPT to understand the recommendations, separate necessary services from optional ones, and identify questions to ask in the future. 5. I also used it to research brake repairs, compare prices, and discuss how to evaluate repair shops. 6. I now feel more knowledgeable and confident when making vehicle-maintenance decisions.

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.

We adopted a two-year-old Yorkie Poo who was only partially pad-trained. Grok helped me create a daily crate-training schedule for taking her outside, and I asked it about every issue or question that came up. For example, I would take her outside and she would stand there staring at me. Grok explained that she might be trying to demand that we go back inside. It told me to turn my body away from her and avoid eye contact, which worked. She eventually toileted outside. Grok also explained that I could not expect her to use indoor pee pads and reliably go outside at the same time. She needed a strict reset schedule to break her old habits. I reported each issue to Grok, and it adjusted her schedule accordingly. I knew exactly when to take her out next and how long to wait for her to pee. She received treats only after eliminating outside. At the beginning, she was out of the crate for only 10 minutes of playtime three times a day. As her compliance improved, Grok increased her time outside the crate. Grok told me that its guidance drew on information from kennel clubs, top breeders, veterinarians, and others, so I felt I was getting high-quality direction. It took her 14 weeks to become reliably trained, and now she is out of the crate most of the time. Grok also rearranged her schedule when we had a party to attend. This is what one of her early schedules looked like: Step-by-step: 1. I took her on her morning walk after the bus as usual and rewarded outdoor elimination. After a short play session, I put her in the crate. 2. At 11:00 a.m., I took her out for a potty break. If she eliminated, she received 45–60 minutes of supervised time in sight or on a leash, followed by crate time. 3. At 2:00 p.m., I took her out again. If she eliminated, she received 30–45 minutes in sight or on a leash, then went into the crate by 2:45 p.m. 4. At 3:15 p.m., I gave her the evening meal. 5. Between 3:45 and 4:00 p.m., I took her outside for a potty attempt and stayed out long enough for her to try properly. I rewarded her only if she eliminated. 6. At 4:00 p.m., I put her in the crate. Water in the crate was fine. 7. If she did not eliminate during the 3:45–4:00 p.m. outing, I still put her in the crate and left for the party at 4:30 p.m. I took her outside as soon as I returned. 8. At 8:30 p.m., I took her out immediately after getting home, rewarded outdoor success, and crated her for the night. 9. I did not give her extra free time after 2:45 p.m. or leave her loose near the table while I got ready. The day was for management, not a training test. She could learn the house rules over time within this structure, but when I could not watch her, she stayed in the crate. I did not cancel the evening because of an unsuccessful potty attempt.

I’m a commercial excellence consultant for industrial B2B businesses, and very few of the clients I speak with have a current view of the competition in their market. Nobody has mapped the competitive landscape recently—sometimes they never have. Clients can often name the companies in the market, but they can’t explain what those competitors do differently or why a customer would choose one over them. That gap is expensive. The mid-market manufacturers I work with, typically in the $75 million to $300 million range, usually don’t have a strategy team to close it. The alternatives are consulting rates for research that goes stale as soon as it’s delivered or a generic template that says the same five things about every market. Neither option is necessarily wrong, but neither is very useful. So I built a Claude Skill: an instruction set that runs live research every time instead of pattern-matching to a generic answer. The input is simple: the company name, its brand voice, the research scope, the geography, and a known competitor list if one is available. Before researching a single competitor, the Skill states the decision the report needs to inform—for example, whether to enter a vertical, how to price against a rival, or where to direct sales next quarter. It checks the client’s own website and capabilities next; an early version once recommended something the client already had. It then maps the competitive field across five tiers: direct, adjacent, disruptor, new entrant, and aspirational for PE-backed clients. It checks Asia-Pacific specifically because that’s the blind spot I’ve seen missed most often. Market size carries a confidence flag instead of false precision. Findings become battlecards phrased the way reps actually talk, rather than in analyst language. The report also includes a threat ranking with a timeline attached, then closes with three opportunities, three risks, and four to six moves for the quarter. Every recommendation is filtered through the original decision instead of being included simply because the research was interesting. The output is two files: an interactive HTML report and a matching PDF. Both are built entirely in HTML and CSS rather than with canvas charts, which can break in exactly the ways that matter—blank on load or missing from the PDF. None of what makes this useful is the AI itself. The important work is naming the decision before researching a competitor, checking what the client already has, tagging confidence instead of faking precision, and writing like a rep rather than an analyst. That’s the difference between a report that gets skimmed once and one that gets acted on. This is one piece of a bigger system I run for industrial manufacturers applying AI to their commercial function. I teach the underlying version of this workflow live. Step-by-step: 1. I provide Claude Skill with the company name, brand voice, research scope, geography, and known competitor list, if available. 2. I define the decision the report needs to inform, such as entering a vertical, pricing against a rival, or directing sales next quarter. 3. I have the Skill check the client’s website and capabilities before researching competitors. 4. I map the competitive field across direct, adjacent, disruptor, new entrant, and, for PE-backed clients, aspirational competitors. 5. I check Asia-Pacific specifically to address a commonly missed blind spot. 6. I assign confidence flags to market-size estimates rather than presenting false precision. 7. I turn the findings into sales-rep-friendly battlecards and add a threat ranking with a timeline. 8. I close the report with three opportunities, three risks, and four to six quarterly moves tied back to the original decision. 9. I deliver the result as an interactive HTML report and a matching PDF, using HTML and CSS instead of canvas charts.

I built a job application workflow that goes beyond finding vacancies and generating generic CVs. First, GPT helps me scan for vacancies that match my practical requirements, interests, skills, and preferred types of work. The more useful part starts when a vacancy looks genuinely promising. I connected GPT to Canva and created several “base CVs” for the sectors and roles I was interested in. Instead of using one universal template, I designed each CV to fit the visual and cultural tone of a particular type of work. For example, a front-desk role, a back-office administrative position, and an assistant role in a creative company may involve overlapping skills, but they communicate very different expectations. Each base CV therefore uses different layout choices, colour use, visual tone, and photo selection. For every version, I review several possible photos and choose the one that best matches the role and the impression I want to convey. When I apply for a specific vacancy, GPT helps turn the relevant base CV into a more personalized version. Instead of rewriting my entire work history, we emphasize the experience, tasks, strengths, and values that are genuinely most relevant to that role. The same applies to motivation letters. Rather than generating a generic corporate letter, GPT uses a tone of voice shaped through months of conversation with me. The goal is for the application to sound recognizably like me while still matching the language, priorities, and culture of the vacancy. Before building this workflow, I did everything manually. For a vacancy that felt worth applying to, I typically spent around two hours refining the CV and motivation letter alone, not including the time spent searching for the vacancy. Even a small typo in the final application email could undermine hours of careful work. Now, once I decide a vacancy is a good fit, the full personalization process takes around twenty minutes on average. That includes selecting the right base CV, adapting the emphasis, refining the letter, checking the tone, and preparing the final application. The workflow works across several layers: vacancy discovery, role and sector matching, base CV selection, adapting experience and values, adjusting visual tone, personalizing the letter, final review, and application. What I like about this approach is that personalization is not limited to inserting keywords from a vacancy. It includes content, visual identity, emphasis, tone, and context. The result is a small family of CVs rather than one document being stretched awkwardly across every possible job. Each version keeps the same underlying career history while presenting the parts that matter most for a particular type of role. The biggest improvement is not only speed but consistency. The workflow reduces repetitive manual rewriting while keeping each application specific, personal, and carefully matched to the role. It turns roughly two hours of manual polishing per strong vacancy into about twenty minutes of collaborative refinement, with fewer opportunities for small final-stage errors to spoil an otherwise strong application. Step-by-step: 1. I use GPT to scan for vacancies that match my practical requirements, interests, skills, and preferred types of work. 2. When a vacancy looks promising, I identify the relevant sector, role, and type of impression I want to convey. 3. I use Canva and GPT to create and maintain several base CVs, each with its own layout, colour use, visual tone, and photo selection. 4. For each base CV, I review several possible photos and choose the one that best fits the role and the impression I want to convey. 5. I select the base CV that best matches the vacancy. 6. I adapt the CV by emphasizing the experience, tasks, strengths, and values that are genuinely most relevant instead of rewriting my entire work history. 7. I use GPT to personalize the motivation letter in a tone shaped through months of conversation with me, while matching the vacancy’s language, priorities, and culture. 8. I check the tone, review the application for small errors such as typos, and prepare the final application. 9. I complete the personalization process in around twenty minutes on average instead of spending roughly two hours on manual polishing for a strong vacancy.

I used a simple workflow to save several hundred dollars on veterinary bills while sitting in a veterinary urgent care clinic. This approach could also apply to many other purchases or services where I’m not an expert. I had already been chatting with ChatGPT about my pet’s symptoms and their likely causes. After I arrived at urgent care, I consulted the doctor about the likely diagnosis and the tests and treatment we should pursue. The clinic assistant then brought me a printed, itemized list of all the charges for the proposed plan. I resumed the ChatGPT conversation by dictating what the doctor had told me, photographing both pages of the charge list, and uploading them. I asked whether any charges were very likely unnecessary given the circumstances. ChatGPT identified four of the 24 charges and explained why they appeared to have very limited value. I crossed those four items off the list, handed it back to the assistant, and said, “I don’t think these are necessary at this point.” I could tell from the assistant’s facial expression that no one had done this before. When the doctor returned, I could tell I had caught her off guard. She agreed that two of the four tests likely offered no benefit and explained why we should keep the other two. At that point, I decided to trust the doctor more than the AI agent—perhaps partly to be polite, since I could tell her justification for keeping the tests was weak, although the cost wasn’t significant. Step-by-step: 1. I described my pet’s symptoms and their likely causes to ChatGPT before visiting the clinic. 2. I consulted the doctor about the likely diagnosis and the tests and treatment we should pursue. 3. I photographed the clinic’s two-page, itemized list of 24 charges and uploaded it to the existing ChatGPT conversation. 4. I dictated what the doctor had told me and asked ChatGPT whether any charges were very likely unnecessary in the circumstances. 5. I reviewed ChatGPT’s explanation of the four charges it identified as having very limited value. 6. I crossed those four items off the list and discussed them with the clinic assistant and doctor. 7. I kept two tests after the doctor explained why they should remain, while declining the other two. The process saved me $600.

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.

I’m a nerd for deals, so I built a Personal Credit Card Optimizer in ChatGPT. I wanted a simpler way to figure out which store and card would save me the most money on any item I want to purchase. The workflow maintains a database of my credit and debit cards—recording their series, but not their exact numbers—along with their rewards, fees, and benefits. Whenever I want to buy something, I add a product link. It scans retailers for better prices, checks current bank offers against my specific cards, and compares instant discounts, cashback, reward points, and other benefits to determine where I should buy and which card will provide the most value. It’s now an ongoing skill in my ChatGPT project. No more manually checking a dozen bank offers or discovering at checkout that my card isn’t eligible. Step-by-step: 1. I add my credit and debit cards to a database by recording their series, rewards, fees, and benefits without entering their exact numbers. 2. When I want to purchase something, I provide a product link. 3. The workflow scans retailers for better prices on the product. 4. It checks current bank offers against my specific cards. 5. It compares instant discounts, cashback, reward points, and other benefits to determine the best retailer and card combination.

I built a daily AI story-scouting workflow that finds potentially viral stories for Instagram Reels, YouTube Shorts, and TikTok without recycling topics we’ve already covered. First, the workflow reviewed Rowan’s public short-form archive once to create a coverage map of past topics and editorial taste. It uses that map as a filter, helping distinguish a genuinely new angle from another version of the same AI launch, robot demo, or research story. Every morning, it scans priority sources, including AI and technology coverage from major newspapers and tech blogs, The Rundown newsletters, company announcements, research papers, and public updates from major AI and robotics companies. The workflow is not limited to same-day news. It also looks back over the past one to six weeks for stories that have not been extensively covered in the media. Each potential story is checked for four things: a clear visual hook, a technical idea that can be explained in 45–90 seconds, broad audience interest, and meaningful novelty compared with Rowan’s past coverage and the previous week’s recommendations. It keeps every story that clears the bar rather than forcing a fixed number. The final brief is ranked by strength and sent as one compact Slack DM at 10 AM each day. Step-by-step: 1. The workflow reviews Rowan’s public short-form archive once and builds a map of past topics and editorial taste. 2. Each morning, it scans priority sources, including major newspapers, tech blogs, The Rundown newsletters, company announcements, research papers, and public updates from major AI and robotics companies. 3. It searches both same-day news and stories from the previous one to six weeks that have not been extensively covered in the media. 4. It filters out topics that substantially repeat Rowan’s past coverage or the previous week’s recommendations, while identifying genuinely new angles. 5. It evaluates each potential story for a clear visual hook, a technical idea explainable in 45–90 seconds, broad audience interest, and meaningful novelty. 6. It keeps every story that meets those criteria instead of forcing a fixed number of recommendations. 7. It ranks the final brief by strength and sends it as one compact Slack DM at 10 AM each day.

Design taste is hard to put into words. I may know immediately that one website, presentation, report, or graphic feels right and another doesn't, but still struggle to explain whether the difference comes from the typography, spacing, colors, density, layout, or overall aesthetic. That makes working with AI frustrating. If I can't describe what I want, the AI has to guess. Instead of trying to explain my design taste upfront, I turned the process into an iterative visual feedback loop. I first asked the AI to suggest existing websites with different design styles so I could identify examples I liked. Once it had those references, I asked it to create three substantially different HTML mockups for the same content. I picked the direction I liked best, explained what I liked and disliked, and had the AI generate another set of alternatives based on that feedback. After about three rounds, the AI had a much better understanding of my design preferences than I could have given it in a written prompt. The basic loop is: show me examples → I choose → generate alternatives → I react → refine → repeat. This is essentially preference elicitation through examples. Research on human-AI interaction has similarly found that people can refine difficult-to-articulate preferences by reacting to concrete alternatives rather than specifying everything upfront. Step-by-step: 1. I asked the AI for several visual references, including websites or designs that represented distinctly different styles. 2. I reviewed the examples and identified the ones I liked. I didn't need sophisticated design terminology; I simply described what I preferred and anything obvious that I liked or disliked. 3. I gave the AI something real to design. I used an actual report I was working on so I could evaluate the styles in context. 4. I asked the AI to create three substantially different visual directions rather than minor variations of the same design. 5. I chose the direction closest to my taste and explained what I liked, what I didn't, and which elements from the other versions I wanted to incorporate. 6. I asked the AI to generate three new alternatives using everything it had learned so far. 7. I repeated the process until the designs began to converge. I did roughly three rounds, with each round narrowing the design space and giving the AI more information about my preferences. 8. I asked the AI to summarize what it had learned into reusable design guidelines so future projects could start with those preferences. Instead of trying to translate an aesthetic preference into design terminology, I let the AI learn my taste from my choices. The important shift is simple: don't describe what you like—show, choose, react, and refine. This can work for websites, presentations, reports, branding, graphics, interior design, clothing, invitations, or almost anything else where I know what I like when I see it.

I created a system to keep records of frozen seafood orders, including PO numbers, dates, item codes, pallet quantities, pounds, cases, and lot numbers. I need to make the system more efficient. Step-by-step: 1. Record each frozen seafood order. 2. Capture the order’s PO number, date, item code, pallet quantity, pounds, cases, and lot number.

I used AI to help investigate a family mystery that had remained unresolved for decades: identifying the biological family of my maternal grandfather. The challenge was not a lack of information. It was almost the opposite. I had DNA matches, family trees, names, dates, historical records, old photographs, obituaries, Facebook genealogy groups, and conversations with possible relatives. The difficult part was connecting all these scattered clues without jumping to conclusions. I built a research workflow in which AI acts as an investigation partner, not as the source of truth. Step-by-step: 1. I gathered the information I already had from genealogy platforms, DNA matches, family trees, historical documents, and family records. 2. I used ChatGPT to organize the evidence into people, dates, locations, relationships, DNA connections, documents, and unresolved questions. 3. I separated the information into three categories: confirmed facts, hypotheses, and missing information. 4. Instead of asking AI, “Who was my grandfather's biological father?”, I asked it to analyze possible family connections and identify which hypotheses were compatible with the available evidence. 5. For each hypothesis, I looked for supporting evidence, contradictory evidence, and information that was still needed. 6. I treated AI-generated connections as leads rather than genealogical proof. The goal was to use AI to decide what to investigate next, not to have it find the answer. 7. I used AI to compare family branches, surnames, generations, locations, and possible relationships among DNA matches whose family connections I did not immediately recognize. 8. When a promising connection appeared, I returned to the original genealogy and DNA sources to verify it. This gradually turned a long list of DNA matches into a smaller number of research paths. 9. I used AI to draft respectful, personalized messages to DNA matches and members of genealogy communities, including people in another country and language. 10. In each message, I explained what I was researching, what connection I suspected, what information I already had, and what I hoped the recipient might be able to confirm or rule out. 11. I treated their responses as new evidence and repeated the investigation loop: evidence → AI analysis → hypothesis → verification → human contact → new evidence → updated hypothesis. The final result is not an “AI-generated family tree.” It is a human-led investigation in which AI helps manage complexity, ask better questions, and identify the next useful action. The most important lesson I learned is that AI is particularly useful in genealogy when you do not ask it to give you the answer. Ask it to help you build the investigation.

After nearly 20 years in France, I’m finally applying for citizenship. I’ve spent the past year preparing documents and studying for the required tests, and my final interview is a few weeks away. Alongside the official study materials, I’ve been using ChatGPT to drill key facts and historical dates, run mock oral interviews in voice mode, and create quizzes from YouTube videos I link whenever they cover the right material. ChatGPT sometimes speaks French with a rather heavy accent, but the interactive back-and-forth helps me remember hundreds of details that are difficult to retain by simply reading a page. It’s tedious, but I find rote memorization challenging. We’ll see how it goes under pressure.

I built a local memory system for Claude that is a bit different from others I have seen. The reason was familiar: repeated context loss and gaps, even within projects. I am not technical—I come from a healthcare background—so it was essentially vibe-coded, but I used a method I had not seen elsewhere. I started by interviewing Claude about what would be useful to it, rather than beginning with only what I wanted. The three biggest gaps were the rationale behind decisions, current versus historical states, and the difference between global and project-level detail. We also identified ways memory can go wrong, including stale facts being confidently asserted as truth and rejected ideas resurfacing. Claude’s built-in memory stores flat topics without entity links, captures what but not why, is not well temporally grounded, and is gated by Claude. I researched other memory builds, from homebrew systems to enterprise tools, and found that they generally fell into three groups: - Vector dumps, which lack rationale and supersession and can become stale - Plain Markdown with grep or embeddings, such as Basic Memory, which similarly lacks real temporal grounding and an entity graph - Heavyweight knowledge-graph stacks such as Neo4j, LangChain, and GraphRAG None of these did what I wanted. My store holds entities only, not transcripts. It stores decisions, observations, people, and projects connected by typed edges. Each entry has content, a scope—either portfolio-worthy or working detail for one project—a rationale, and information about where it came from. The system is also bitemporal, so it distinguishes what is current from what is not. Nothing is edited in place: a correction adds a new assertion instead of overwriting the old one. Underneath, it uses SQLite, with sqlite-vec for semantic search and FTS5 for keyword search. Nothing writes automatically. Claude has to propose a memory, and I have to approve it. This prevents the store from filling with noise, keeps it token-efficient, and acts as a governance lever. MCP links Claude to my server. It is local-only at present, although there is potential to add remote access in the future. The server provides instructions for making proposals, so the system is theoretically portable, and I also created a Claude skill to accompany it. I ran the build across multiple projects and created specialist projects for different roles: - A central development and oversight project served as the decision-maker and prompt-writer. - Cowork handled the building and tested each module inside a sandbox. It had no authority to change decisions, and I used a fresh project for each stage of the build. - I handled deployment separately by typing every command on the server and pasting the output back. - I repeated Claude’s Cowork-authored tests on the actual server. Real-world testing after deployment identified only minor issues, which were quick to fix. This separation was administratively heavy because I had to keep switching between projects as tasks started and finished, but it caught several errors in the rules and code. Despite my lack of technical knowledge, the project is now well documented and I have room to develop it further. I may eventually put it on GitHub. It has become a standard component of my workflows, my projects are tracked much better, and Claude and I are on the same page more often.