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

At some point, my newsletters stopped feeling like reading and started feeling like debt. The information was good; I just couldn’t keep up. I wanted a way to turn that backlog back into something useful. So I built The Daily Nexus, a private tool that reads newsletters from a Gmail label and creates two editions: a podcast I can listen to and a separately written, two-page newspaper I can scan. It runs on demand or on a schedule, and it can publish the audio to a private RSS feed for Apple Podcasts. The project also became a hands-on experiment in building with coding agents. Claude Code and Codex helped me implement features, troubleshoot failures, review the design, and tighten security. The stack includes Python, the Gmail API, Antigravity, Kokoro, FFmpeg, Firebase, Cloudflare Workers, and GitHub Actions. The carousel shows the rest of the flow. It started as a personal tool, but I’m sharing the template for anyone who wants to adapt the idea. Each deployment uses its own accounts and credentials, and the design aims to avoid additional API costs by using an existing AI subscription and available free tiers. GitHub Repo Template: https://lnkd.in/eYceS4KR Step-by-step: 1. I label the newsletters I want to process in Gmail. 2. I run The Daily Nexus on demand or on a schedule so it can read the newsletters from that Gmail label. 3. The tool creates a podcast edition and a separately written, two-page newspaper edition. 4. I listen to the podcast or scan the newspaper, depending on how I want to catch up. 5. When needed, the audio is published to a private RSS feed for Apple Podcasts. 6. I use Claude Code and Codex to implement features, troubleshoot failures, review the design, and tighten security. 7. Each deployment uses its own accounts and credentials, with Python, the Gmail API, Antigravity, Kokoro, FFmpeg, Firebase, Cloudflare Workers, and GitHub Actions supporting the workflow.

I work with long talking-head videos for my online course and Instagram. Turning them into vertical shorts used to take hours per video: finding the best moments, cropping to 9:16, adding captions, or paying for clipping subscriptions. I built a video-clipping agent as a Claude skill that runs entirely on free, open-source tools. Step-by-step: 1. I drop a long video—either talking-head footage or an already-produced 16:9 video—into a folder and invoke my "clipper" skill in Claude. 2. Claude transcribes the video locally with faster-whisper using word-level timestamps, so no API key is needed. ElevenLabs Scribe is an optional upgrade for tricky audio. Before transcription, the workflow cleans the audio with declipping and normalization because clipped microphone peaks can make Whisper skip words or hallucinate. 3. The skill scores every candidate moment against a rubric: hook strength (30 points), whether it can stand alone (25), emotional charge (20), rhythm (15), and ending (10). Only segments scoring 70 or higher survive, so I do not publish a weak clip simply because it exists. 4. Claude cuts the selected moments with word-level precision and reframes them to 9:16 in one of two modes: face-tracking crop for raw footage, or "pad" mode, which centers the full 16:9 video over a blurred background. The latter lets me repurpose already-edited videos without chopping off centered graphics or captions. 5. ffmpeg masters everything to a fixed specification: 1080x1920, 24fps, H.264 CRF18, and audio normalized to -14 LUFS. The files are ready for Instagram, TikTok, and Shorts. 6. I review the scored shortlist and publish the winners. What used to take hours—or require a monthly subscription—now takes minutes and costs zero. The scoring rubric also makes the agent explain why each clip deserves to exist instead of simply cutting wherever the waveform looks loud.

A finished video can be wrong in ways you cannot see—not because of the edit, but because of the delivery file itself. That is what gets work sent back, and it is rarely the craft. I built a delivery check for this. I give it a finished file, tell it where the file is going and what kind of piece it is, and it measures the things that cause rejections: sample rate, mono audio, integrated loudness against the destination target, true peak, dynamic range against a band rather than a single number, A/V drift, whether the shots cut together, and whether the file can stream before it has finished downloading. Most of those checks are for sound, because most of what gets sent back is sound. Picture problems are visible on a screen. A file that is 2 dB too quiet or peaks at -0.7 dBFS can look perfect and still come back. For everything it can fix, the checker gives me the exact `ffmpeg` command, with the numbers already calculated for that file. It does not merely describe the fix, and it does not hand me a corrected file. That was the decision that mattered. A fixer is a black box. You never learn that you had a problem, so you make it again the following week. Then, when your editing tool adds an “optimize on export” button, you have nothing. An inspector that explains the problem in one sentence and gives you the command teaches you the standard once and remains useful when the tools change. Three things determined whether I would actually use it, and none of them are checks. “Two severities, never one.” Something either bounces, or it needs your eyes. A tool that only says “bad” gets ignored on the third run, because half of what it flags is a decision you made on purpose. Sample rate, mono, and true peak bounce without argument, and they get a command. Loudness and dynamic range need to be reviewed first. My dynamic-range check says in plain words that the result is often deliberate and should be fixed at the source rather than in the master. “A check that refuses to give a verdict.” On vertical video, the platform interface covers the bottom 26 percent and the top 12 percent. I flag high-contrast elements in those zones but deliberately do not fail them, because the detector cannot tell a caption from a bright patch of sky. The report explains that limitation. A check admitting what it cannot know is what makes the checks that do commit worth trusting. “The thresholds are mine; the code only applies them.” They live in a table: destination crossed with content. Social wants -14 LUFS, a festival master wants -18 with a wider tolerance because festivals provide a band rather than a number, and broadcast wants -23. A scripted short is allowed to be denser than a screencast. That table is the whole product. For example, to catch shots that do not cut together, I measure the luminance range across the piece. The first version used average brightness per frame and kept flagging legitimate night photography. A fade to black has nothing bright in it; a night scene does—a streetlight, a moon, or a face. Changing the discriminant to the brightest pixel in the frame instead of the average eliminated the false positives. That took ten minutes of thinking, and no amount of better code would have found it. Step-by-step: 1. I wrote down what had actually gotten my work sent back over twenty years before writing any code. I captured the scars rather than making a spec sheet; that list became the product. 2. I gave every check a severity: it bounces, or look before you send. Anything I could not confidently put in one bucket became informational, with no verdict at all. 3. I made every check return four things: the measured value, pass or fail, why it matters in one plain sentence, and, where possible, the command that fixes it. 4. I put the thresholds in a profile table instead of hardcoding one standard, because -14 LUFS is right for social and wrong for a festival. 5. I added a parameter for whether the file is my own master or a copy pulled from a platform. On a downloaded copy, half the container checks measure someone else’s transcode rather than my work, so they are skipped and the report explains why. 6. When two fixes would collide, I output only one command. If loudness already needs a gain change, the limiter goes inside that command instead of being offered separately; otherwise, I would run two instructions that fight each other. 7. I tuned the checker against real files until the false positives stopped. Ignoring the top and bottom five percent of frames eliminated the ones caused by a single stray frame. 8. I made the output a report. I read it, decide, and run the command myself. The functions are an afternoon of work, and anyone can copy them. What is not written down is the list of what to check, at what threshold, and why.