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

I develop the song with ChatGPT, working through the lyrics, structure, mood, and sound tags. I then move the concept into Suno, which generates the music. Once the track is finished, my ChatGPT agent handles the download and archiving workflow where site authentication allows it. ChatGPT also creates the visual artwork. I assemble the finished song and image into a full video and a Short in Clipchamp. From there, I publish the content to YouTube and TikTok, then share the release across Facebook, LinkedIn, and X. What makes this workflow interesting is not any single AI tool, but the handoff between them: writing, music generation, file handling, image creation, video assembly, publishing, and distribution—all directed by one human creative process. The result is a practical, end-to-end AI-assisted production pipeline rather than a single AI-generated output. Step-by-step: 1. I work with ChatGPT to develop the lyrics, structure, mood, and sound tags. 2. I move the concept into Suno to generate the music. 3. Once the track is finished, my ChatGPT agent downloads and archives it where site authentication allows. 4. I use ChatGPT to create the visual artwork. 5. I combine the finished song and image in Clipchamp to create a full video and a Short. 6. I publish the finished content to YouTube and TikTok. 7. I share the release across Facebook, LinkedIn, and X.

I used AI to reconstruct more than two decades of professional work scattered across old publications, broken links, archives, indexes, and surviving records. The difficult part was not finding possible matches; it was preventing AI from turning incomplete evidence into false certainty. I built a workflow that treats archive reconstruction as a verification problem rather than a search problem. The process separates verified work from probable matches, resolves same-name conflicts, deduplicates reprints and syndicated copies, preserves source provenance, and treats missing years as research gaps rather than permission to invent records. The result was a source-tracked professional archive containing 250+ recovered records across more than 20 years. The workflow can be adapted to journalism, research, consulting, creative work, speaking histories, or any long-term body of professional output. I use the following research-archivist workflow: - Never invent titles, dates, publications, URLs, or authorship. - Separate records into VERIFIED, PROBABLE, and REJECTED. - Treat same-name individuals as separate identities until evidence proves otherwise. - Deduplicate syndicated copies, reprints, mirrors, indexes, and cached pages. - Preserve provenance for every verified record. - Mark gaps rather than filling them. - Distinguish “not found,” “unverified,” and “confirmed absent.” - State uncertainty explicitly. Step-by-step: 1. Ask for names and bylines, employers, publications, career dates, subject areas, known titles, source files, URLs, and any same-name conflicts. 2. Build an identity fingerprint. 3. Establish verified seed records. 4. Search iteratively across multiple query patterns and sources. 5. Classify every result. 6. Resolve identity conflicts. 7. Deduplicate records. 8. Normalize metadata. 9. Build a chronology. 10. Identify and search gaps. 11. Run a provenance and error audit. The final output includes: - Verified Master Archive - Probable / Needs Verification - Rejected / Other Person - Gap List - Source Notes - Final Audit The archive is never described as complete unless the evidence supports that conclusion.

This Codex-driven workflow takes a software request from problem understanding through implementation, validation, review, and delivery evidence. Instead of asking an AI coding agent to simply “build the feature,” it gives the agent an explicit development lifecycle with defined responsibilities, deterministic validation gates, repair loops, and human checkpoints. The goal is to make AI-assisted development more structured, observable, and recoverable. It can be used for new feature implementation, bug fixing, refactoring, test creation and improvement, code quality and security hardening, and documentation and automation changes. The core principle is simple: Don't give the AI only a coding task. Give it an engineering lifecycle to work on. Step-by-step: 1. Understand the problem. Clarify the request, identify the desired outcome, define the scope, and surface ambiguity before implementation begins. The output is problem understanding and scope. 2. Define constraints. Identify technical, functional, non-functional, compatibility, and out-of-scope constraints. The output is a constraint set. 3. Plan. Analyze implementation options, select an appropriate approach, break the work into tasks, and define acceptance criteria. The output is an implementation plan. 4. Inspect the existing system. Review the relevant codebase, dependencies, current behavior, and affected components before making changes. The output is system context. 5. Implement. Make the smallest appropriate code changes while following the existing project’s conventions and the approved plan. The output is code changes. 6. Run deterministic validation. Run tools that can objectively validate the implementation, including formatting, linting, type checks, builds, unit tests, and other available automated checks. The output is validation results. 7. Review. Evaluate the implementation against the original requirement, the plan, code quality expectations, security considerations, and potential regressions. The output is review findings. 8. Repair and iterate. If validation or review identifies problems, diagnose the issue, make the required correction, and repeat validation. The output is a corrected implementation. 9. Verify. Confirm that the acceptance criteria are satisfied and that the relevant tests and checks provide sufficient evidence for completion. The output is a verification result. 10. Produce delivery evidence and handoff. Summarize what changed, what was tested, what passed, known limitations, and any remaining decisions requiring human attention. The output is delivery evidence and a human handoff. The core loop is: Implement → Validate → Review → Repair → Validate → Verify. Testing and review are treated as part of development rather than activities performed only after coding is “finished.” AI coding agents are increasingly capable of inspecting repositories, writing code, running commands, and responding to failures. The problem is that capability alone does not provide an engineering process. This workflow separates the responsibilities an AI coding agent performs into explicit stages. It applies several principles: - Problem before implementation: Understand what needs to change before writing code. - WHY before HOW: Establish the intent and constraints before choosing an implementation. - Single responsibility per stage: Give each stage a defined purpose and output. - Deterministic validation first: Use tests, linters, type checkers, builds, and other deterministic tools wherever they can establish correctness. - Failure localization: When something fails, identify which stage or assumption needs correction. - Evidence-based completion: Support completion with validation and review evidence rather than an AI declaration that the task is finished. - Human checkpoints: Use automation to accelerate execution without removing human judgment from important decisions. The broader idea is: The AI should participate in the engineering system, not become the engineering system.

After about 18 months of building software with AI, I realized that reliability wasn't primarily a model problem. Bigger context windows and more clever prompts didn't fix it. What did help was treating the AI like a developer joining an existing team instead of like a chatbot. Real developers don't work from memory. They inspect production, read the documentation, check the tickets, and use proven tools. I built an environment that lets the AI do the same. The workflow is tool-agnostic, so it can be rebuilt with whatever AI client and stack you already use. Step-by-step: 1. I gave the AI a persistent task and history store that it can read from and write to. This is the core of the workflow. Mine lives behind an MCP tool, but any queryable store can work. Every architectural decision, blocker, and progress note gets written there instead of being left in the chat. 2. I open every session with a stand-up. Before writing a single line of code, the AI pulls what was in progress, what's blocked, what changed since the last session, and which architectural decisions still hold. About 30 seconds later, we're both looking at the same project. Then we build. 3. I exposed real operations as MCP tools instead of relying on "write code" prompts. I wrapped specific, tested actions—such as creating a page, defining a data model, wiring an integration, and running a migration—as tools. The AI composes these known-good building blocks into larger solutions instead of regenerating infrastructure every session. I call this wave coding, and it's the biggest reason the output stays consistent. 4. I made verification a rule: before touching anything, the AI reads the live database, API state, logs, and files. It checks ground truth first instead of making assumptions. 5. I made the chat disposable and the log canonical. If it isn't logged, it didn't happen. The task store is the single source of truth, not the conversation. The payoff is that I can stop halfway through a feature, close my laptop, and come back days later. The AI reconstructs the project from its own history, so I don't spend 20 minutes re-explaining it. Full disclosure: I built this into my own platform, WebsitePublisher.ai, which currently has 43 MCP tools and 105 integration building blocks. It's delivered as an add-on that plugs into the AI client I already use over MCP, so there's no new app to learn. Nothing here is locked to that platform, though: the workflow itself works with any MCP client and any store the AI can query. I'm curious whether anyone else is running their AI this way or solving the amnesia problem from a different angle.

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