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

I needed home insurance and was asked to estimate the value of all my personal belongings. I asked Claude to search my personal email and make a list of all the purchases I had made in the past year. I asked my husband to do the same and share his list with me. I also made a list of our valuables and took a picture of each room in the house. I gave all of that information to Claude, which produced a list of everything I owned and estimated its rough value. It cross-referenced the purchases with the items visible in the photos to make sure I did not double-count anything. I sent the list to my insurance broker, who said it was extremely helpful and could also serve as supporting evidence if I ever needed to submit an insurance claim.

I gave Claude Cowork a list of insurance providers and asked it to get quotes using my specific details, including my house address, number of bedrooms, and security features. I asked for multiple quotes covering extras, monthly versus yearly payments, and different excess levels. I then asked Claude Cowork to review the policy terms and online reviews to identify any potential gotchas. This helped me compare more than 20 quotes from major providers and choose the insurance that best suited my house. Step-by-step: 1. I gave Claude Cowork a list of insurance providers and my specific house details. 2. I requested quotes with different extras, payment frequencies, and excess levels. 3. I asked Claude Cowork to review the policy terms and online reviews for potential gotchas. 4. I compared more than 20 quotes and selected the insurance that best suited my house.

AI is useful for researching investments, but most workflows stop at “What should I buy?” The harder part comes afterward: Does the idea make sense given what I already own? What would make me add to the position? When should I take profits? What evidence would prove the original thesis wrong? And how do I track all of that without constantly watching the market? I use AI to turn a one-time investment research session into an ongoing decision and monitoring system. I start by asking AI to research the market for potential opportunities. In my case, I look specifically for strong mean-reversion trades, but the same workflow could start with value opportunities, macro themes, sector rotations, individual stocks, crypto, or almost any other investment strategy. Then I give AI my actual portfolio so it can evaluate those ideas in context. After I decide which recommendations I agree with and manually make the trades, I have AI convert each investment thesis into explicit rules for what should happen next. Finally, I turn those rules into automated monitors that periodically check market conditions and alert me only when something happens that warrants another decision. Step-by-step: 1. I define what I’m looking for by asking AI to research potential investment opportunities using criteria I care about, such as mean reversion, valuation, momentum, macro conditions, risk/reward, or another strategy. 2. I have AI investigate current market conditions and rank the opportunities, narrowing a large universe down to a manageable set of ideas worth examining further. 3. I pressure-test each thesis by asking why the opportunity exists, what could drive the expected outcome, what the major risks are, and—most importantly—what evidence would invalidate the thesis. 4. I provide my current holdings so AI can identify overlapping exposures, concentration risks, hedges, or positions that conflict with the new ideas. 5. I ask AI which existing positions the research suggests reviewing and where new exposure might make sense. The goal is a small number of actionable decisions rather than a giant list of interesting trades. 6. I review the analysis and independently decide whether to buy, sell, hold, or do nothing. I keep actual trade execution under human control. 7. Before the market moves, I define the next decision for every position by asking AI to identify conditions that would warrant reviewing whether to: - Add - Take profits - Reduce exposure - Exit - Reconsider the original thesis 8. I turn those conditions into automated monitors. I have ChatGPT periodically check the relevant prices, yields, economic indicators, news, or other variables. Instead of sending routine updates, I tell it to alert me only when a predefined trigger occurs. 9. When a trigger fires, I return to the original thesis with the new information and decide what—if anything—should change. Instead of using AI for isolated investment recommendations, I now have a repeatable loop for managing an investment thesis over time: Find an opportunity → Understand it → Compare it to what I own → Make a decision → Define what would change my mind → Let AI watch for it The most useful part may actually come after the investment decision. By deciding in advance what evidence would make me add, take profits, or reconsider the thesis, I don’t have to start my analysis from scratch every time the market moves. AI becomes a persistent research and monitoring layer while I remain responsible for every investment decision and trade.

How I Use AI: Building a Client's Entire Document System From Scratch I run a boutique accounting practice, and one of my biotech clients — a preclinical oncology company — needed something I didn't have time to build by hand: a real, standardized document management system in SharePoint. Not just folders, but the rules behind the folders — a tagging taxonomy, a naming standard, guides for the team to actually follow it, and a clean way to organize documents for every vendor we work with. The kind of project that's easy to keep putting off because it's tedious, not because it's hard. So I used Perplexity's Computer agent as a genuine working partner on it, not just a search tool. Where it started I already had a first draft of a Tagging Taxonomy and a Document Management Standards document. I asked Computer to review both with an eye toward what a real accounting/finance team would actually need — GAAP-heavy, audit-ready, built for a lean biotech team that's going to scale fast. It came back with concrete recommendations (new functional areas I hadn't accounted for, cleaner naming conventions), and once I gave the go-ahead, it revised both documents into new, cleaner versions — taxonomy v1.1, standards v5.4 — complete with version histories so nothing got lost in the shuffle. Then it went further than I expected: 13 "START HERE" guide files, one for every top-level folder area, each explaining not just what goes where but why, with real examples. That's the part that actually makes a standard stick — nobody follows a rulebook they don't understand. Where it got real Here's the part I'd actually tell someone about: I tried uploading the whole folder structure to the client's SharePoint through the browser, and it failed — quietly, no big error, just close to 100 folders silently missing afterward. I was frustrated, and I said so. Computer didn't get defensive about it — it dug into why, compared the folders that made it against the ones that didn't, found the exact character-length boundary where things broke, and built me a PowerShell script that would fix it if I needed it. Then, while I was testing a fix, I discovered the real answer myself: dragging the folder from my hard drive straight into the OneDrive-linked folder in File Explorer worked perfectly, no script needed at all. When I told Computer that, it didn't just take my word for it — it went and calculated the actual path lengths involved to confirm why that method worked and the browser upload didn't, so I understood the real mechanism instead of just getting lucky once. That back-and-forth — me testing in the real world, it verifying the "why" — is honestly the most useful part of working with it. It's not just generating stuff and hoping it's right. The vendor folder win The last piece was the most tedious one I was dreading: building a dedicated document folder — vendor master file, agreements, POs, invoices, correspondence, the works — for every vendor worth tracking. I pulled a vendor spend report out of QuickBooks, sorted by dollar volume, and picked out the real vendors (CROs, law firms, key consultants) versus the noise (hotels, gas stations, one-off restaurant charges). I handed that list over, and Computer built me a script that took it from there: cleaned up messy vendor names (ampersands, apostrophes, trailing punctuation — all the stuff that breaks Windows folder names), handled the one legal name that was way too long automatically, and made sure nothing silently failed the way the original upload did. It tested the script against my actual vendor list before ever handing it to me, so I wasn't the guinea pig for its own bugs. 133 vendors, 1,463 subfolders, dropped into staging, dragged to OneDrive, and the count matched exactly — 1,474 on the nose once you add back the original template folder. That's not a "looks about right" number. That's a number I checked, twice. Why it's worth it Building this by hand for BreakthruMed Inc. — the folder architecture, the governance docs, 13 training guides, and a dedicated set of folders for 133 vendors — would realistically have taken me a couple of weeks of solid, focused work, not the few days I first assumed. Instead, it took about 28 hours spread across three weeks of back-and-forth, testing, and real-world validation, plus roughly $200 in extra usage on top of my regular subscription. That's a real cost, but a small one next to two or three weeks of my own time — and what I walked away with wasn't just a folder tree. It was a governance framework, training material my team can actually use, and two reusable scripts I'll put to work on the next client — a system I trust, because I checked it, and it checked itself

I’m a 71 year old retired cattleman and recently started learning about AI. After learning to build some simple apps I recently built a research tool using Replit. You type in any question or topic, and instead of just giving you a generic AI answer, it actually goes out and does real research — searches the web, pulls official SEC filings for company data, checks peer-reviewed medical journals, reads financial pages for live stock quotes, and even reviews documents you upload. It breaks your question into multiple sub-questions, researches each one separately, then writes a full report with cited sources. It has different modes depending on what you need — general research, company due diligence, market analysis, competitive intelligence, legal document review, and stock picks with full investment breakdowns. I've been using it to research stocks for my investment club, dig into companies before making decisions, and get up-to-speed on markets fast. It's like having a research analyst on call 24/7.

We built an evidence-driven Agentic AI workflow for extracting trustworthy investment intelligence from messy real-estate documents. The problem wasn't simply getting an LLM to read PDFs. Real-estate investment information can be distributed across reports, underwriting documents, valuation materials, rent schedules, spreadsheets, tables, and multiple versions of the same information. A metric such as IRR can also appear several times with different scenarios, dates, classifications, or meanings. Instead of building another "chat with your documents" agent, we designed a controlled agentic workflow around one principle: Don't make the agent smarter. Make the workflow harder to fool. Step-by-step: 1. I start with the business question. The agent receives a request for a specific investment metric for an asset and determines the business context instead of immediately searching for matching words. 2. I resolve the entity by normalizing the asset or entity using aliases, identifiers, relationships, and hierarchy information. This prevents ambiguous names from sending retrieval in the wrong direction. 3. I build a metric-specific plan using governed definitions for important metrics. A definition can include the metric's business meaning, terminology, preferred sources, classifier information, negative cues, and extraction rules. The agent starts with a contextualized retrieval and extraction plan rather than a vague instruction such as "find IRR." 4. I discover the right documents by narrowing candidate source documents with metadata and path-level information before searching the entire corpus semantically. The goal is: Find the right document before finding the right chunk. 5. I retrieve evidence within the selected documents. Only when scoped retrieval is insufficient does the workflow fall back to broader semantic retrieval, keeping the agent's search controlled and auditable. 6. I inspect structured information when necessary. Important investment information frequently lives in tables rather than paragraphs, so the workflow escalates to table-aware processing to inspect rows, columns, schedules, and structured financial evidence. 7. I extract a structured result instead of a long free-form answer. The result preserves the metric, value, unit or context, source document, page or location, and citation information. 8. I validate the evidence by checking the extracted value against the metric definition and relevant validation rules. Depending on the metric, these checks can include unit, scenario, chronology, plausibility, and table-to-text consistency. 9. I resolve conflicts explicitly. If multiple plausible values are found, the agent does not simply select the first result. The workflow applies rules for source precedence, chronology, scenario classification, and evidence strength. If a conflict cannot be safely resolved, the ambiguity is preserved rather than hidden. 10. I produce an evidence-backed result containing the selected metric, supporting evidence, context, and lineage. The result can then become a structured business artifact for downstream analytics, reporting, or decision-support workflows. This is not simply Question → RAG → Answer. The workflow is Question → Understand → Ground → Plan → Retrieve → Inspect → Extract → Validate → Resolve → Evidence-backed output. Retrieval is one capability inside the workflow. The agent coordinates the process, chooses the appropriate tools, follows the retrieval policy, handles structured evidence, and moves the result through validation and resolution. The biggest improvement did not come from giving the model more freedom. It came from giving the model better boundaries, better domain knowledge, better tools, and explicit decision rules. This pattern can be applied beyond real estate to financial research, insurance, compliance, legal documents, due diligence, and other enterprise workflows where an answer needs to be not only useful, but defensible and traceable.

I was initially told by my CA that I might owe close to $10K in taxes on my income. Since this felt higher than expected, I decided to double-check the calculation using Claude. I shared my contract structure, invoices, and payment flow, and asked it to review how my services should be classified under Goods & Services Tax. While going through the latest regulations, it pointed me to a recent government circular that clarified how certain digital services provided to clients can qualify as export of services. I discussed this with my CA, who reviewed and confirmed it applied to my case. This reduced my tax liability by several thousand dollars. Step-by-step: 1. I collected my contract structure, invoices, payment flow, and the original tax calculation. 2. I asked Claude to review how the services should be classified under Goods and Services Tax. 3. I had it search the current regulations for primary guidance that applied to digital services and exports. 4. Claude surfaced a recent government circular that appeared relevant to the way the services were delivered. 5. I took the circular and reasoning to my chartered accountant, who verified that it applied before the tax position was changed.

QuickBooks stores customer data across multiple windows, including notes, deposits, invoices, payments, aging, and email. To see everything, we previously had to keep several windows open while constantly searching, opening, and closing screens. Communicating with customers beyond QuickBooks’ standard letters was also difficult and time-consuming. I used Claude to write a program that brings this information together in one view. It creates an aging summary of all past-due accounts, with sortable columns for customer name, aging category, and total. I also added columns for the last payment and payment date. Clicking anywhere on a customer’s row opens a full drill-down of that customer’s data on one page. The accounting person can view invoices filtered by date or open invoices, see payments and the invoices they were applied to, review aging detail, run reports without leaving the screen, send emails, record collection notes, and print invoices. The software supports simultaneous access for multiple authorized users. The data stays up to date and can be refreshed at any time. This saves us hours of time compared with working through QBO. My next step is to have Claude automate reminder notices at 30 and 60 days, based on user-selected settings, as well as 90-day collection letters. These notices will be customizable while still allowing automation. Step-by-step: 1. I identified the customer information that was spread across QuickBooks windows, including notes, deposits, invoices, payments, aging, and email. 2. I used Claude to write a program that creates an aging summary of all past-due accounts. 3. I added sortable columns for customer name, aging category, total, last payment, and payment date. 4. I enabled users to click a customer row and open a full drill-down of that customer’s data on one page. 5. I included access to date-selectable invoices, open invoices, payments and their applied invoices, aging detail, reports, emails, collection notes, and invoice printing. 6. I set up the software so multiple authorized users can access the data simultaneously and refresh it whenever needed. 7. I plan to add customizable, automated reminder notices at 30 and 60 days and collection letters at 90 days.

I recently built a month-end close workflow in Awish for a client at a finance company. The problem was not creating the final report. The real bottleneck was collecting data from different systems, checking what was missing, reconciling totals, chasing exceptions, and getting the report to the right people. I built the entire process in Awish by describing what I wanted. Step-by-step: 1. I opened the Awish chat and wrote: “At every month-end close, collect journal entries, invoices, vendor bills, and financial records from NetSuite together with reporting workbooks from Excel and SharePoint. Check submission completeness, reconcile totals across sources, identify missing data or unusual variances, prepare the management-reporting workbook, send unresolved exceptions to Finance in Microsoft Teams for approval, and once approved export the final report to PDF, store it in SharePoint, and distribute it through Outlook.” 2. Awish understood the request, planned the workflow, and selected NetSuite, Excel, SharePoint, Microsoft Teams, and Outlook for the required steps. 3. I reviewed the plan, connected the client’s accounts, and approved the automation. 4. At month-end, Awish pulls the required financial data and reporting files, checks whether anything is missing, reconciles totals, and flags unusual variances. 5. It updates the management-reporting workbook and sends only the unresolved exceptions to the Finance team in Microsoft Teams. 6. Once Finance approves the exceptions, Awish finalizes the report, exports it to PDF, stores it in SharePoint, and sends it to the authorized recipients through Outlook. The useful part is that Finance no longer has to spend most of the close manually collecting and checking information before making a decision. The repetitive reconciliation work is handled automatically, while the team retains control over unexplained exceptions and the final report. Trigger → Analyze → Approval → Action Month-end close → Reconciliation \u0026 variance checks → Finance approval → Final report \u0026 distribution

I started with a plain-language vision: a world championship where people create autonomous AI minds that compete in simulated markets. I used ChatGPT as a product architect to turn that vision into precise rules, technical specifications, development checkpoints, and tasks that could be completed one at a time. I then used AI coding agents, including Claude Code and Codex, to inspect the repository, write the React and TypeScript code, run tests, identify failures, and explain each completed change in plain language. Determinism and auditability were non-negotiable. Every match uses a reproducible seed, every autonomous mind trades in its own matching engine, and every decision is recorded in an auditable event ledger. After each development cycle, I tested the product, reviewed the interface on desktop and mobile, corrected problems through natural-language instructions, and saved a new canonical checkpoint. I deployed only after the automated tests passed. This allowed me, a 66-year-old self-taught non-programmer, to build a working autonomous-mind competition platform through human vision, AI collaboration, and strict verification. Step-by-step: 1. I defined the vision for a world championship in which people create autonomous AI minds to compete in simulated markets. 2. I used ChatGPT to develop the rules, technical specifications, development checkpoints, and one-at-a-time tasks. 3. I used Claude Code and Codex to inspect the repository, write the React and TypeScript code, run tests, identify failures, and explain completed changes in plain language. 4. I required every match to use a reproducible seed, each autonomous mind to trade in its own matching engine, and every decision to be recorded in an auditable event ledger. 5. After each development cycle, I tested the product, reviewed the interface on desktop and mobile, corrected problems through natural-language instructions, and saved a new canonical checkpoint. 6. I deployed only after the automated tests passed, enabling me to build a working autonomous-mind competition platform through human vision, AI collaboration, and strict verification. Explore the live platform: https://arenomics.com

I used to create a skeptical VC investor persona through prompting whenever I ran ideas and actual business plans through AI. Recently, after working on a business plan for weeks, I used Claude Cowork with Opus 5/High to evaluate the same concept. Instead of prompting for critique and redesign each time, I built a Skill upfront. The concept is the same, but the Skill makes the execution much more effective. It reviews ideas or detailed business plans, researches first, and critiques only after that. It also analyzes and suggests wedges and new moats and, when instructed, generates detailed business plans. It works well as a one-shot analysis, but it is most effective when I push back and challenge it further. I’m sharing the Claude Skill for free under the MIT license: https://github.com/zszendro/vc-teardown Step-by-step: 1. I used to prompt AI to role-play a skeptical VC investor when reviewing ideas and business plans. 2. After working on a business plan for several weeks, I ran the same concept through Claude Cowork with Opus 5/High. 3. Instead of prompting separately for critique and redesign, I built a Skill upfront. 4. I designed the Skill to research first and critique only afterward. 5. I used it to review ideas or detailed business plans, analyze and suggest wedges and new moats, and generate detailed business plans when instructed. 6. I continued the analysis by pushing back and challenging the Skill beyond its initial one-shot response. 7. I shared the Claude Skill for free under the MIT license at https://github.com/zszendro/vc-teardown

The ETHOS™ Framework (Evaluation Through Hierarchical Oversight of Sources) is a multistage forensic audit system designed to transform AI-generated research into “audit-ready” ground truth. Its five-stage lifecycle is designed to ensure technical precision: Step-by-step: 1. EXTRACT (Stage 1): Using the Ground Truth Manifesto and the six-tier Authority Ladder, ETHOS extracts structured tax reports from multiple LLM archetypes: Technical Specialists, Strategic Advisors, and Operational Drafters. This forces their initial findings to follow a strict legal hierarchy. 2. TEST (Stage 2): The Tax Citation Auditor subjects the reports to a three-pass forensic review, testing every citation for existence, pinpoint accuracy, and application fit. Any citation that cannot be verified in a primary repository is immediately downgraded or flagged. 3. HEAL (Stage 3): The Post-Audit Correction Protocol (PACP) repairs the evidence chain by requiring the LLM to resolve flagged citations, replace fabrications with 3–15-word verbatim micro-quotes, and revalidate all “knock-on” effects across downstream computations and thresholds. 4. ORGANIZE (Stage 4): The Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) controller organizes the pre-audit and post-audit artifacts in a consolidated AI sandbox, such as Google Notebook, Claude Cowork, or Perplexity Spaces. This manages the collectively exhaustive data, elevates mutually exclusive advisory angles, and maintains institutional version control. 5. SYNTHESIZE (Stage 5): ETHOS applies MECE principles (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) and the Weighted Authority Confidence Index (WACI) to adjudicate model conflicts and synthesize a single ground-truth memo. Every load-bearing conclusion is certified for release.

Customer events trigger AI workflows that classify requests, automate actions, update systems, and keep teams in sync without manual intervention. Step-by-step: 1. Customer events trigger the AI workflows. 2. The workflows classify requests. 3. They automate actions and update systems. 4. They keep teams in sync without manual intervention.

I used Claude Cowork to replace a weekly analysis of closed-end funds for a weekly newsletter. I created a project that uses Claude for Chrome to scrape and download all closed-end pricing information from a CEF website. It adds that information to a weekly dated spreadsheet and calculates changes from the prior week, month, and year. It also updates other data points, including graphs, Top 10 and Bottom 10 rankings, and our own portfolio of funds. Step-by-step: 1. I created a Claude Cowork project for the weekly closed-end fund analysis. 2. I used Claude for Chrome to scrape and download all closed-end pricing information from a CEF website. 3. I added the information to a weekly dated spreadsheet. 4. I calculated changes from the prior week, month, and year. 5. I updated the graphs, Top 10 and Bottom 10 rankings, and our own portfolio of funds. 6. I used the resulting analysis for a weekly newsletter.