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

I'm 78, a former army officer, and I live alone in the woods in southern British Columbia on satellite internet. In late January 2026, I knew nothing about AI and considered myself a novice in technology. After watching a YouTube video about advanced AI models, I started learning from YouTube channels that explain new AI research papers. I decided to run an experiment: what could a technology novice build with AI? I've been building for about 15 hours a day ever since. My goal is to build a system that improves itself in a continuous loop: it finds an upgrade proposal, builds and tests it, filters and grades it, approves or rejects it, installs it if it passes, monitors its performance, and learns from the result. We custom-built FORGE3 RSI in 900 hours. It consists of four plug-in modules: Forge2 RSI, which runs the improvement cycle; Bridge, the checker and connector; JAZ RSI, an upgrader in RAM built from a research paper; and Forge SecureBox, a high-security Mac app that runs security tests and code in a fresh, disposable virtual machine with no network device. I don't write code—it feels like a foreign language to me. Instead, I set the direction and run a team of AIs, mostly low-cost, near-Frontier models: Gemini 3.1 Pro and Hark as chiefs of staff; Cline and Devin as builders; and other models as independent, adversarial auditors. The rule that has made this work is simple: nothing gets built without an adversarial audit before and after. Our critical build pipeline is: Plan → audit → blueprint → audit → tests → audit → build → audit → test → audit → commit Each module has been built and fully tested on its own. Forge2 RSI alone has more than 1,000 tests. The first complete end-to-end cycle, using one upgrade proposal that we feed it by hand, is the next step. Our first attempt was fragile, and models that sound confident are often wrong. That is why audits matter more than any single model. FORGE3 RSI is my own custom-built plug-in module project. Our hardware and models are an MBP i9, Mac mini M4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Hark, Cline (GLM 5.3/SPARK 1.3/MiMoV2.6), Devin (SWE2/GPT SOL 6), KUN (DeepSeek V4.1), and Git. Step-by-step: 1. We select a promising published research paper and have the team prepare and build it. 2. For every file, the team follows the same sequence: plan, audit, blueprint, audit, write tests, audit, build, audit, run tests, audit, and commit. 3. A different AI audits the work than the one that built the file. I decide when and how each audit happens. 4. Nothing is written or changed without my explicit GO. Reading and checking code is free; writing is work and waits for me. 5. We handle one building task at a time and avoid bundled instructions. 6. Any code the system wants to test runs inside SecureBox, sealed off from my Mac and the internet. 7. Everything that passes is committed to Git. The builders also maintain shared memory documenting what was decided and why, so the next session can pick up where the previous one stopped. 8. Next, we will run one complete improvement cycle with a hand-fed upgrade, then scale up slowly to two or three papers a week, prioritizing quality over speed as we work toward full autonomy.

Most AI agents are effectively static. You write their instructions, use them repeatedly, notice where they struggle, and manually tweak the prompt when something goes wrong. Valuable feedback from real work is often lost, so the same mistakes can keep happening. I created a self-improvement flywheel that uses actual agent performance data to improve agents over time. The system collects two kinds of evidence: - Task scores showing how well each agent performs across different quality dimensions - Run telemetry and review outcomes revealing recurring failures, coordination problems, and cases where actual behavior differs from expectations A scheduled weekly cycle analyzes that evidence, identifies patterns, creates improvement proposals, evaluates whether those proposals are safe and broadly applicable, updates agent instructions when appropriate, and measures whether those changes actually improve performance. The goal is not to let agents rewrite themselves freely. It is to create a controlled learning loop. Step-by-step: 1. Collect performance data while agents work. Score important outputs across consistent quality dimensions, and record useful execution telemetry such as failures, decisions, reviewer outcomes, and unexpected behavior. 2. Analyze performance trends on a recurring schedule. Calculate per-agent averages, identify weak dimensions, compare agents, and look for improvement or decline over time. 3. Mine run history for recurring patterns across multiple sessions, including agents that repeatedly struggle, low-quality runs, and cases where expected behavior differs from what actually happened. 4. Turn repeated problems into improvement proposals. Before proposing a change, inspect the agent’s current instructions so you do not add a rule that already exists. 5. Evaluate each proposal before applying it. Check whether the lesson is broadly useful, redundant with existing instructions, or in conflict with established behavior. 6. Separate low-risk and high-risk changes. Automatically apply additive or clarifying improvements. Escalate conflicting changes for human review instead of allowing the system to fundamentally change an agent’s behavior on its own. 7. Look for system-level problems. Analyze patterns across agents to identify quality gaps, missing capabilities, or coordination failures that cannot be fixed by changing one agent alone. 8. Apply approved improvements and preserve the history. Update the relevant agent instructions, archive the processed proposals, and version the changes so they remain inspectable and reversible. 9. Measure whether each change actually helped by comparing agent performance before and after the refinement. If quality does not improve, do not automatically assume the change was useful. 10. Repeat the cycle. As agents complete more real work, the system gathers more evidence and gets another opportunity to improve. Instead of treating agent instructions as static prompts, I turned them into a continuously improving system: Work → Evaluate → Find Patterns → Propose Changes → Refine → Measure → Repeat The important part is that the loop is evidence-driven and controlled. Agents improve from real usage, but low-confidence or behavior-changing updates still require judgment rather than being applied automatically.