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

Most AI agents are built around general best practices. That’s useful, but it doesn’t mean they work the way I want them to. I’ve started using a simple calibration process to tailor my agents to my preferences. Instead of telling an agent what to do on each task, I have it interview me about how I like work done in its specific domain. A writing agent asks different questions than a research agent, and a strategy agent asks different questions than a coding agent. The goal is to make my working preferences part of how the agent operates. Step-by-step: 1. I pick an agent I use regularly, such as one for writing, research, strategy, coding, analysis, or career advice—especially where my personal preferences matter. 2. I ask the agent to interview me about how I prefer work to be done in its domain. A writing agent might ask about tone, structure, editing style, and how much pushback I want. A research agent might ask about source quality, depth, recency, citations, and how much synthesis I prefer. 3. I have the agent summarize what it learned and separate durable preferences from temporary or situation-specific ones. 4. I review the proposed changes and ask the agent to show me exactly how it wants to update its instructions or skills. I correct anything it misunderstood and explicitly approve the changes before anything is modified. 5. Once I approve the changes, I have the agent apply them to its instructions or skills so those preferences become part of how it works going forward. 6. I use the agent normally and pay attention to where it feels more aligned and where it still misses the mark. 7. When I notice recurring friction, I add or adjust the relevant preference instead of repeatedly correcting the same behavior task by task. 8. I repeat the interview periodically. My preferences, tools, and workflows change, so the agent should be able to ask which preferences are still valid, which ones I keep overriding, what has been annoying me, and what should be added or removed. The result is an agent that doesn’t just know how to do the job; it knows how I want the job done. Because every change is proposed and approved before it becomes permanent, the personalization stays intentional rather than turning into a collection of guesses about me.

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 made an orchestration skill to help me build faster while using my expensive Astra and Fable tokens carefully. The skill plugs into Astra or Fable and delegates tasks that can happen in parallel to multiple subagents running cheaper models suited to the work. This is especially useful for researching or finding data on the web or on my computer, analyzing code, collecting context, and indexing. The most expensive, newest models focus on maintaining delegation control, doing the difficult reasoning and strategic planning, and judging whether everything is coming together correctly. The cheaper agents handle the lighter-weight work, especially implementing code from the plans. The core idea is simple: the expensive model plans, briefs, and judges; cheaper agents do the reading and building. When I ask Claude or GPT to build the skill, I specify five things: Step-by-step: 1. I define a triage ladder: work can happen inline, with one agent, through a parallel fan-out, or in a multi-stage workflow. I choose the approach based on the task shape and include examples from my domain. 2. I define parallel versus sequential execution based on data dependencies. Independent pieces run in parallel, while anything that needs another piece’s output runs afterward. I never split one change into separate planner, coder, and tester roles. 3. I define model routing with a mandatory model pin: judgment work goes to the mid-tier model, mechanical bulk work goes to the cheap model, and every agent call names its model so nothing silently uses premium billing. 4. I define a brief template and a return-envelope cap. Every delegation includes the goal, inputs, output file path, definition of done, and constraints. Every agent returns a 250-word summary instead of raw files. 5. I define a cost gate with specific numbers. Below N agents, the workflow proceeds automatically; above N agents, it states the estimate and waits for approval.

An AI “executive brain” needs two things: intelligence that, combined with your context, forms the system’s “brain,” and a harness that gives it “hands”—the agentic capabilities to act on your behalf. Claude Code and Codex are two popular options. Their apps provide both the model and the harness in an easy-to-use interface. My workspace is GitHub because popular AI models already understand it and can handle its setup and administration for me. GitHub also syncs automatically with the local file system on my MacBook, so I retain complete ownership and control. If I ever wanted to leave GitHub, I could do so without lock-in. The same setup can work in any file system, from your local file system or Google Drive to a more sophisticated option like Obsidian. A good manager has a structured process for onboarding and staying aligned with a team. You need the same structure to work effectively with AI. My “executive brain” has four layers: the company layer, project folders, operations folders, and the process layer. The company layer contains the mission, vision, values, brand guidelines, and decision-making principles. Project folders contain one folder per project, including its specification, plan, open questions, and decision log. Operations folders cover ongoing areas of the business, such as marketing, finance, and support. They have the same shape as project folders, but they never finish: projects ship, while operations run. The process layer contains standard operating procedures for how we work together, such as processing a meeting, planning a project, publishing a post, and closing out the week. For AI to work successfully, your company has to be “legible” to it. If information is not written down and accurate, it is not legible, and the AI cannot help you with it. This is like onboarding a great new hire: explain what the company is trying to do, what each project is for, what has already been decided and why, and how you like to work. You do not need to write everything alone or all at once. The AI can interview you, draft the documents, and file them in the right place based on the structure you set up. An employee without logins cannot do much, and AI works the same way. Start with the places where you communicate. At my company, we primarily communicate through Zoom and our community forums, so my AI system is connected to both. This allows it to stay up to date as we progress and participate in discussions as an equal participant when asked. Once the AI is connected to your communications, give it access to the places where you want it to execute on your behalf. You can connect it directly through an API or MCP, or it can use a browser to interact with a tool the same way you do by clicking and typing. You decide what it can access, and you can start small. Each connection turns a category of “things I have to do myself” into “things I can delegate.” The final step is incorporating what the AI learns. After every working session and meeting, it updates the record: decisions are logged, task lists are reconciled, and project documents are brought up to date. When we learn something, it goes into the SOP, so every future run is sharper than the last. That is how the AI becomes more useful every week: its knowledge compounds inside the business instead of starting from zero in every conversation. Step-by-step: 1. Choose the intelligence and harness that will power your AI system. Claude Code and Codex are two popular options whose apps provide both in an easy-to-use interface. 2. Create a workspace for alignment, planning, feedback, and learnings. I use GitHub because AI models understand it, it handles setup and administration, and it syncs with my local MacBook file system without locking me in. 3. Organize the workspace into four layers: company information, project folders, operations folders, and process documentation. 4. Make the company legible by documenting its goals, projects, decisions, working preferences, and other relevant context. Have the AI interview you, draft the documents, and file them in the appropriate locations. 5. Connect the AI to your communication tools, such as Zoom and community forums, so it can stay informed and participate when asked. 6. Connect the AI to the systems where you want it to execute tasks. Use a direct API or MCP connection when available, or give it browser access when it is not. 7. After each working session and meeting, have the AI update decisions, task lists, and project documents. 8. Add new learnings to the relevant SOP so each future run improves on the last.

I've been thinking about the value of handoff documents and explanatory documents as we continue exploring efficient ways to work alongside AI to build software and improve communication. Even though we use many different tools, Markdown still has an important place. This new version of an HTML handoff document can document what exists, describe what could exist, or serve as a mockup for a brainstorm. It lets us communicate with remarkable fidelity through visuals, hierarchy, and formatting. It's also an efficient format for AI to understand. We shouldn't underestimate the significance of AI communicating with us through a visual medium. A visual flowchart with thoughtful design, layout, animation, and progressive disclosure can help us understand the logic and flow of incredibly complex systems much faster. I tried all kinds of tools, including React Flow and Mermaid. They're fun to experiment with, but Archify is a game changer for this use case. I can point it at any technology, repository, or brainstorm and work with it to build flowcharts with animations and clean, distinctive design. It's also completely free. https://tt-a1i.github.io/archify/# Step-by-step: 1. I identify whether I need to document what exists, explore what could exist, or mock up a brainstorm. 2. I use Markdown and an HTML handoff document to communicate the ideas with visuals, hierarchy, and formatting. 3. I consider tools such as React Flow and Mermaid for creating visual representations. 4. I point Archify at the relevant technology, repository, or brainstorm. 5. I work with Archify to develop a flowchart with animations, clean design, and progressive disclosure so the system's logic and flow are easier to understand.

Midlifecurious is a newsletter for women navigating midlife—honest, funny, and allergic to being talked down to. Its Sunday issue, the Midlife Missive, is a roundup covering health, wellness, money, beauty, and family. My sister, Claire, edits it; I build the machine behind it. That machine is Missive, a five-part publishing intelligence system that runs the newsletter as one closed loop: scan → triage → publish → measure → remember. It monitors Reddit, search trends, and RSS to identify what midlife women are paying attention to before those topics reach our feeds. Discovery pulls in those sources, ranks every feed using a click-rate-based quality score, and lets Claire triage articles into the week’s issue. Curation composes Sunday’s newsletter and drafts the introduction in her voice. Performance reads the Mailchimp results back into the system and feeds them into the rankings, so strong sources rise and weak ones fall over time. Underneath all four stages is Memory: a vector-searchable corpus of every article, save, rejection, and the reasoning behind each decision. Memory is the real spine of the system. It lets Missive ask editorial questions such as “Have we covered this before?” and “Is this source still earning its slot?” instead of requiring one person to hold everything in her head. We’re a two-person operation: I build with Claude Code, and Claire edits. The system runs on one database for under $25 a month. I built it because the alternative was Claire drowning in a Feedly-and-spreadsheet routine that discarded everything as soon as an issue shipped. We had no record of what we had run and no feedback on what actually landed. My bet is that the corpus is the moat. Claire’s editorial taste—every save, rejection, and “cornerstone” stamp, with the reasoning stored alongside the decision—is a training set no one else has. A system that remembers turns her job from synthesizer into judge. Missive is deliberately internal-only: no SaaS and no customers, ever. That frees me to build for our exact workflow instead of a hypothetical buyer, and to build for 2028 instead of this quarter. The near-term payoff is a calmer Sunday. The long-term goal is a proprietary editorial-intelligence layer we could never buy off the shelf—the foundation for the research and audience products that come next. Step-by-step: 1. I monitor Reddit, search trends, and RSS for topics that midlife women are paying attention to. 2. I pull those sources into Missive and rank each feed using a click-rate-based quality score. 3. Claire triages the ranked articles into the week’s Midlife Missive. 4. Missive composes Sunday’s newsletter and drafts the introduction in Claire’s voice. 5. I import the Mailchimp results so the system can update source rankings based on performance. 6. Missive stores every article, save, rejection, “cornerstone” stamp, and the reasoning behind each decision in a vector-searchable corpus. 7. We use that memory to check whether a topic has already been covered and whether a source is still earning its place. 8. I build and maintain the internal system with Claude Code, while Claire handles editing, using one database that costs under $25 a month.

A while ago, my dad told me he wanted to use AI to analyze World Cup matches. He had never coded before, and his AI experience was mostly limited to occasionally asking Gemini a question. I installed Claude Code for him and gave him a few prompting tips. He ended up building a full football analytics site himself and deploying it on Vercel so he could show it to his friends. Getting started with AI is easier than people assume. Sometimes, you just need a project you genuinely want to make. Now that the Premier League season has kicked off, he’s already reworking the site for it. Step-by-step: 1. I helped my dad choose a football analytics project he genuinely wanted to build for analyzing World Cup matches. 2. I installed Claude Code for him, since he had never coded before. 3. I gave him a few prompting tips and let him use AI to help build the site. 4. He built a full football analytics site himself. 5. He deployed the site on Vercel so he could show it to his friends. 6. After the Premier League season kicked off, he began reworking the site for the new competition.

I keep a long wishlist on Audible, but whenever I want a new audiobook, I face the same question: does my library already offer it for free through Libby? Checking hundreds of titles manually feels like too much work, so I often spend a credit instead. I had Claude build a workflow that checks for me. It reads my Audible wishlist and cross-references every title against my library’s Libby catalog, sorting each one into three categories: borrow now, join the waitlist, or not available. The important part was learning to interpret Libby accurately. Badges and time estimates can make an audiobook look ready when it isn’t, and a pending hold can look like an active one. The reliable signal is the exact text on the button: “Borrow” means I can borrow it; anything else means I should wait or move on. Step-by-step: 1. I gave Claude a workflow to read my Audible wishlist. 2. I had it cross-reference every title against my library’s Libby catalog. 3. I had it sort each title into “borrow now,” “join the waitlist,” or “not available.” 4. I configured the workflow to interpret availability using the exact button text rather than relying on badges or time estimates. 5. Before spending an Audible credit, I check whether Libby already has the audiobook ready.

I love playing poker, both online and live. One month, I performed poorly. Although it felt like the cards were running badly, I wondered whether I had developed a problem in my game and was blaming my losses on bad luck. I asked around, including asking AI, whether a tool existed that could measure luck from poker hand histories. The unwelcome answer was that it did not. I'm not a coder, but after doing some research into vibe coding, I started building a luck-detection app in a Claude chat. Claude built the UI directly in the chat window and advised me on the formulas I was using to calculate luck for the cards dealt, my performance on the flop, and my performance when I went all in. All three metrics have strong averages, and luck is what varies them. I used a bell curve to model hand outcomes and a Monte Carlo simulator, which Claude suggested and executed, to evaluate all possible outcomes. The result astonished me because it was so useful. I immediately fixed two major leaks in my game and felt better knowing that bad luck really was the main problem affecting my results. I liked the tool so much that I decided to turn it into a full web app with Claude Code, and now an iPhone app that I may let other people use for free. I also had a lot of fun building it—except for learning how to use Xcode. That was a pain, even with step-by-step guidance from Claude. Step-by-step: 1. I reviewed a month of poor poker results and questioned whether bad luck or problems in my game were causing the losses. 2. I researched whether a tool existed that could measure luck from poker hand histories and learned that I would need to build one myself. 3. I used vibe coding to start building a luck-detection app in a Claude chat. 4. I had Claude create the UI and advise on formulas for evaluating cards dealt, flop performance, and all-in performance. 5. I used a bell curve to model hand outcomes and a Monte Carlo simulator to evaluate possible outcomes. 6. I used the results to identify and fix two major leaks in my game and confirm that bad luck was also affecting my results. 7. I expanded the project into a full web app with Claude Code and then began building an iPhone app, working through the added challenge of learning Xcode.

I built a portal to manage lectures and applications for teaching sociology students at my university. It displays educational content, monitors attendance, supports pedagogical evaluation, and provides training in methodological skills. Step-by-step: 1. I built a portal for managing lectures and applications for sociology students at my university. 2. I added educational content for students to access. 3. I included attendance monitoring. 4. I added tools for pedagogical evaluation. 5. I incorporated training in methodological skills.

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.

I built a meal tracker where my only job is to photograph a plate and send it to an agent. Identification, portion estimates, macros, storage, corrections, and the weekly review happen without me. The part worth stealing isn't the food. The agent has its own email address and iMessage thread, so anything I can send from my phone becomes an input. I send a photo through whichever channel takes fewer taps. I send corrections as plain English with `CORRECTION` in the subject, and answer questions in the same thread. There’s no app and no form. Adding a channel took an afternoon and changed what the agent could be pointed at—the tracker is just one use of an agent you can talk to. It polls on a schedule instead of using a webhook because my laptop sleeps and a local gateway would be unavailable half the time. Storage is append-only JSONL. Corrections append a new record with the same ID using last-write-wins, so the stats layer sees one meal while the original estimate stays on disk. Every number can be traced back to the model’s first guess and my override. The accuracy mechanism is a challenge step. Every photo is estimated twice: first by the main model, then by a blind subagent that receives only the photo and the rubric—not the first answer. If it identifies different food, the entry is downgraded to low confidence and becomes a question for me. Testing before making the system autonomous caught bugs that otherwise would have failed silently. The API returns attachments under a different field than I had assumed, and only on the detail endpoint. As a result, a photo email was read as having no attachments, and every meal photo would have been dropped while the daily task logged a tidy “no new meals” and appeared healthy. The send path was separately broken, which would have killed the weekly review on a Sunday even with everything upstream working. A silent no-op that produces a plausible clean run is what this category of build is prone to. The bug that actually cost me was token usage: each blind challenge read used about 44,000 tokens, so a five-photo dinner cost roughly 220,000 tokens for one meal and capped my usage. The fixes, in order of effect, were to run the challenger on a cheap model, skip it once a named product or my confirmation has settled the entry, downscale photos for viewing, and republish the dashboard only when the data changes. Measuring first mattered—I would have blamed photo size, but that was the smaller half. The honest limits are important: calorie estimates from a photo are 20–25% off at best, identification error is a bigger risk than arithmetic error, and alcohol, water, and caffeine are never estimated from photos. The sequence in which I asked for things mattered more than any single instruction: Step-by-step: 1. I gave the goal and the one ingestion mechanic I was sure about, then insisted on an agreed plan before any code. Arguing about storage and failure modes is cheap before code is attached. 2. Before scheduling anything, I processed one real input end to end in front of me, including every outbound path. Inbound gets tested because I use it; the reply and the weekly digest do not. 3. When the agent reported something about my own input that I knew was wrong, I said so and made it re-check. Confidently wrong answers about things I witnessed were the cheapest bugs to find. 4. I asked for an independent second assessment of anything estimated rather than read, and decided up front what level of agreement was enough to accept the result. 5. I asked for a visible audit surface showing every field the agent claims to track, with a correction control on it. 6. I asked the agent to look up anything knowable rather than estimate it. A named product is a lookup; only the unnameable needs a guess. 7. I treated approval friction and token cost as requirements rather than complaints, and measured before changing anything. Almost every rule exists because something went wrong in ordinary use, not because it was designed up front. An agent I can email or text, which keeps records and answers back, is general-purpose; I’ve pointed it at one narrow job. What else would you point it at?

AI agents are much more useful when they can remember important context across sessions. However, giving every agent access to one giant memory creates a different problem: irrelevant information accumulates, context becomes noisy, and agents waste time sorting through details that do not apply to their task. The challenge is not only giving AI memory. It is deciding what should be remembered, which agent should remember it, and where that memory belongs. I use a three-tier memory system that separates knowledge by scope: - Global memory: Information that should be available across the entire AI system - Agent memory: Knowledge specific to an individual specialist and how it should work - Project memory: Decisions, constraints, discoveries, and context that matter only within a particular project Instead of copying everything into every agent’s context, I store information at the narrowest level where it remains useful. Step-by-step: 1. Create a global memory layer for durable information that is useful across many agents and projects, such as important user preferences, shared conventions, and system-wide decisions. 2. Give each specialist its own memory. Store knowledge that helps a particular agent perform its role better, such as recurring preferences, domain lessons, and patterns learned from previous work. 3. Create project-specific memory for decisions, constraints, terminology, discoveries, current state, and other context that belongs with the project rather than in global memory. 4. Classify new information by scope. Whenever something worth remembering is learned, ask: - Does the whole system need this? - Does only this agent need it? - Does it matter only for this project? 5. Store the information at the narrowest useful level. Avoid promoting project-specific details into global memory unless they are genuinely reusable elsewhere. 6. Have agents load relevant memory before they work. A specialist can combine its accumulated knowledge with the current project context instead of starting every session cold. 7. Update memory as important decisions are made. Persist decisions and reusable lessons rather than relying on conversation history to remain available indefinitely. 8. Keep historical artifacts separate from active memory. Run logs, old handoffs, and detailed history can remain available for reference without automatically loading into every future interaction. Instead of treating memory as one giant bucket, I create a hierarchy: `Global → Agent → Project` Each agent gets the context it actually needs while unrelated information stays out of its working context. This provides better continuity across sessions, reduces repeated explanations, keeps context cleaner, and helps AI agents accumulate useful knowledge without requiring every agent to remember everything.

I built an agent from scratch that monitors my Claude and Codex usage by adding a runner node directly inside the root of each project repository. It includes agent templates for specific jobs, such as commit, research, janitor, and manager tasks. The agents run automatically at night, when I’m not actively using my five-hour usage period. They monitor their own usage and cap themselves so they leave usage available for me. Later, I built a hive dashboard where I can monitor all of these payloads in one place and execute them from the dashboard as the agents’ jobs become more complex. Step-by-step: 1. I added a runner node to the root of each project repository. 2. I created templates for specific agent jobs, including commit, research, janitor, and manager tasks. 3. I configured the agents to run at night when I’m not actively using Claude or Codex. 4. I had the agents monitor and cap their own usage so they preserve usage for me. 5. I built a hive dashboard to monitor and execute the payloads from a single place as the agents’ jobs became more complex.

Je veux créer N’ose Digital IA, un SaaS international dédié à l’automatisation et conçu de A à Z comme un véritable business SaaS, avec l’IA au cœur de la plateforme. Le projet comprend un dashboard IA de service client ainsi qu’un agent vocal qui répond aux clients et s’appelle « Client ». Step-by-step: 1. Créer le SaaS N’ose Digital IA. 2. Optimiser la plateforme autour de l’automatisation. 3. Concevoir un dashboard IA dédié au service client. 4. Intégrer un agent vocal appelé « Client » pour répondre aux clients. 5. Développer la plateforme comme un business SaaS international, avec l’IA au cœur du projet.

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’m 71 years old, retired from owning a large cattle-feeding operation, and fairly new to AI and software development. I’ve discovered that I really enjoy using AI to build practical tools in Replit. My latest project is an app for our church to help us oversee a $13.5 million renovation of a 65,000-square-foot former movie theater into our new church facility. I’m not a programmer or a construction expert, so I’m using AI to help bridge both gaps. I built the app almost entirely by describing in plain English what I wanted it to do, testing what it built, and working back and forth with AI to improve it. The app uses AI to read meeting notes, emails, texts, and general project updates and identify decisions, action items, important dates, budget changes, and project events. Nothing is accepted automatically. I review, edit, approve, or reject what AI finds before it becomes part of the project record. The app also keeps our budgets, documents, meetings, and project history together. My goal isn’t to replace our project manager or construction software. I want to see whether someone my age, with no programming or construction background, can use AI to build a useful tool for helping an owner understand and manage a complicated real-world project. Step-by-step: 1. I described in plain English what I wanted the app to do. 2. I used AI in Replit to build the app based on those descriptions. 3. I tested what AI built and worked back and forth with it to improve the app. 4. I designed the app to read meeting notes, emails, texts, and general project updates. 5. I use it to identify decisions, action items, important dates, budget changes, and project events. 6. I review, edit, approve, or reject every item before it becomes part of the project record. 7. I use the app to keep our budgets, documents, meetings, and project history together.

Granola transcribes my one-on-ones with my boss. I use its API and an HTML dashboard to automatically ingest and categorize the conversations. A scheduled task and skill then process them into a “wiki.” In a custom project, I can ask how my boss would respond to a question. The results are scary good. Step-by-step: 1. I use Granola to transcribe my one-on-ones with my boss. 2. I use the API and an HTML dashboard to ingest and categorize the conversations automatically. 3. A scheduled task and skill process the one-on-ones into a “wiki.” 4. I ask a custom project how my boss would respond to a question.