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

Build a Self-Improving AI Meeting Protocol for Teams This workflow was inspired by a question Brooke Benson posted in the Rundown Hub about meeting transcripts that miss action items or assign them to the wrong person. That felt familiar because I used to take meeting minutes as a management assistant. I often had to ask: Who said this? Was it a decision or only a suggestion? Who owns this action? Was the deadline confirmed? As a human note-taker, I could ask the people in the room and summarize while listening. A speaker might say: “Maybe Friday, but that depends on Marc.” My notes might become: “Friday is tentative and depends on Marc.” A transcriber captures more, but it also captures the verbal spaghetti. So the problem is not only transcription quality. It is ambiguity. Instead of only asking AI to interpret a messy transcript afterwards, what if the meeting itself produced clearer signals? The system has four layers: Step-by-step: 1. Meeting grammar Speaking habits that clarify speakers, decisions, actions, ownership and uncertainty. 2. Team information Context about names, roles, responsibilities, terminology and decision scope. 3. Output template A fixed structure for the meeting report. 4. Feedback loop AI compares corrections with its previous output and suggests improvements. The meeting grammar should stay lightweight. At the start, each participant states their name and role. Name the next speaker when possible: “Marc, go ahead.” “Sofie, what do you think?” Unclear contributions can be restated: “So Marc, Friday is possible only if the technical review is complete. Correct?” Mark proposals, decisions and actions differently: Proposal: “I suggest we move the launch to Friday.” Decision: “We are moving the launch to Friday.” Action: “Marc will update the schedule by Wednesday.” Tentative action: “Marc may update it, pending confirmation.” At transition points, repeat what was agreed: “The decision is Friday.” “Marc owns the schedule update.” “The deadline is Wednesday.” Uncertainty should also be explicit: “Owner to confirm.” “Deadline is provisional.” “This is a proposal, not a decision.” The AI should receive these rules directly: - Treat explicit decision language as confirmed. - Do not assign an owner unless ownership is clear. - Label tentative deadlines as tentative. - Flag uncertain speakers instead of guessing. - Prefer later explicit summaries over earlier ambiguous wording. The AI should also receive team context: name, role, responsibilities, decision authority, terminology and communication patterns. Example: Pieter Vermeulen Operations Usually responsible for scheduling and logistics. Often uses tentative language for proposals. Only assign ownership when he explicitly confirms it. These notes should stay transparent and editable. People should be able to review, change or reject notes about their own communication patterns. The report should use a fixed structure: Meeting title Date Participants Main topics Decisions Action items Owner Deadline Status Open questions Risks or dependencies Items requiring confirmation TL;DR This can be built into a shared internal assistant. It receives the meeting grammar, team information, transcript and output template. It should be conservative about certainty: Owner unclear → “Owner to confirm” Suggested deadline → “Tentative deadline” Unknown speaker → “Speaker unclear” Discussed proposal → “Proposal discussed, not confirmed” A human still reviews speaker attribution, decisions, owners, deadlines and confirmed items. Then the corrected report is fed back to the AI: “Which errors came from unclear meeting signals? Which came from missing team context? Which came from your interpretation? What should be improved?” The AI can suggest updates to the meeting grammar or team information. Example: Error: Several people discussed a task, but nobody clearly accepted ownership. Suggested grammar update: “When assigning an action, confirm owner and deadline in one sentence.” Or: Observed pattern: “Pieter often says ‘we should’ when proposing something.” Suggested profile update: “Treat ‘we should’ as a proposal unless explicitly confirmed.” Profile changes should be reviewed before they are stored. The workflow: meeting → transcript → AI report → human correction → error analysis → grammar/team-context update → review → next meeting Over time, fewer errors should need correction because the system becomes easier to interpret. The division of labor is simple: The transcriber captures everything. Humans resolve meaning and ambiguity. AI structures, summarizes and detects patterns. AI output quality depends not only on the prompt, but on the signals the AI receives. Sometimes the best improvement is to reduce ambiguity before it reaches the model.

I built a predictive maintenance workflow in Awish for one of my manufacturing clients. The client had machine telemetry, production data, and maintenance history spread across different systems. The problem wasn’t collecting the data—it was spotting failure risk early enough to act. I built a custom Awish workflow that continuously checks machine telemetry and production signals in Snowflake alongside asset, meter, and maintenance history from MaintainX. When it detects abnormal performance or increasing failure risk, it identifies the affected equipment, estimates the likely operational impact, and prepares a recommended maintenance action. Nothing is scheduled automatically at that point. The recommendation first goes to the maintenance manager in Microsoft Teams for approval. Once approved, Awish creates and assigns the work order in MaintainX, then keeps tracking and updating its status until the maintenance is completed. The useful part is that the system does not wait for a machine to fail before maintenance starts, but it also does not let AI make the maintenance decision on its own. The analysis is automated, while the actual intervention still requires human approval. Step-by-step: 1. I described the maintenance process I wanted in the Awish chat. 2. Awish planned the workflow and selected Snowflake, MaintainX, and Microsoft Teams for the required steps. 3. I connected the client’s accounts and approved the automation plan. 4. Awish continuously analyzed production and telemetry data in Snowflake together with MaintainX asset, meter, and maintenance history. 5. When it detected abnormal behavior or increasing failure risk, it identified the affected equipment and estimated the likely operational impact. 6. It prepared a recommended maintenance action and sent it to the maintenance manager in Microsoft Teams. 7. Once the manager approved the recommendation, Awish created and assigned the work order in MaintainX. 8. The workflow continued tracking the work order and updating its status until the maintenance was completed. Trigger → Analyze → Approval → Action Machine signals → Failure-risk analysis → Teams approval → MaintainX work order

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

A chocolate factory client had a simple but expensive sales problem: good conversations with buyers sometimes went quiet because nobody followed up at the right time. Some opportunities were waiting on sample feedback, pricing, private-label details, minimum order quantities (MOQs), packaging, or distributor discussions. The opportunities were still active, but they were easy to lose track of. I built a follow-up workflow for the client in Awish. Step-by-step: 1. I opened the Awish chat and wrote: “Track our open sales opportunities from Microsoft Teams and Google Sheets. Every business day, review the latest customer conversation, sales stage, planned follow-up date, customer interest, and how long we’ve been out of touch. Find opportunities that need follow-up around samples, quotations, private label, MOQ, packaging, or distribution. Explain why each customer should be contacted, recommend the next action, and prepare a personalized Teams follow-up message based on the real conversation history. Never send anything without the salesperson’s approval. When the customer replies, close the old follow-up action and update the Sales Master record.” 2. Awish understood the request, planned the workflow, and selected Microsoft Teams and Google Sheets for the process. 3. I connected the client’s accounts, reviewed the plan, and approved the automation. 4. When a new customer conversation takes place in Teams, Awish updates the related sales record. 5. Every business day, it reviews open opportunities and finds deals that are overdue, at risk, or ready for the next follow-up. 6. For each opportunity, it explains why follow-up is needed and what the salesperson should do next. 7. Awish prepares a personalized Teams message using the actual conversation history, but waits for the salesperson’s approval before sending anything. 8. When the customer responds, the previous follow-up is closed and the opportunity status in Google Sheets is updated automatically. Now the sales team gets a prioritized daily list of who needs attention, why they need attention, and what the next message should be—without manually reviewing every old conversation. I want to keep building more workflows like this for real businesses. If you have a complex, repetitive process in your company that you think should be automated but you’re not sure how to build it, send it to me. I’d be happy to see if I can turn it into a working automation with Awish.