AI Workflow Automation
You and your team do the same manual steps every week, and there’s no time left for the real work.
If two people would do the task the same way and it happens weekly, AI can probably do it. If it’s a judgment call, it can’t, and we’ll tell you.
Tell us the one task. We map it, automate it end to end, and hand it back documented, so it keeps running after we’re gone.
Or text 562-726-2287. No form marathon, no discovery call.
$3,000
One process, mapped and automated
No code
You maintain it, no dev needed
Handed over
Documented, then we leave
Start here
Can AI actually do this repeated task? Sometimes, and there's a test that takes about a minute. If two competent people would produce roughly the same output, AI can probably do it. If it's a judgment call that varies by person, it can't, and building it wastes your money.
The other three questions: does it happen at least weekly, can you write down how you decide, and is there a human checkpoint before anything goes out. The third one kills most projects. The full test, and what each answer means, is right below.
Sound familiar
You run the same steps every week, and the real work waits.
You and your small team run the same manual steps every week, and there's never time left for the actual work.
You tried automating it once. It broke, or it needed a developer you don't have.
Your tools don't talk to each other, so you copy and paste between them all day.
The rule for how it gets done lives in one person's head, and when they're out, it stops.
The volume is unmanageable, and most of what comes through is noise you still have to sort by hand.
The off-the-shelf tool was either too expensive or never quite specific enough to trust.
None of this means you're behind, or that the work can't be done. It means the busywork never got mapped. Here's the version where one process runs without you.
The version where this ends
You map it once. After that, the process runs itself every week, and your team gets its hours back.
Not a bespoke system only we understand, and not another tool that needs a developer to touch. The work that used to eat a week gets done in an afternoon. Your team stops copying and pasting between apps that don't talk, and gets back to the high-level work, without waiting on a tech team you might not even have. And because the steps are written down, when someone new inherits it, it keeps running.
The four-question test
Does your task qualify? Run it through these four.
Four questions, about a minute. If your task passes all four, AI can probably do it, and it's worth automating. If it fails one, we'll tell you early, rather than three weeks into a build.
| The question | AI can probably do it if | Don't build it if |
|---|---|---|
| Does it have a right answer someone can check? | Two competent people would produce roughly the same output | The output is a judgment call that varies by person |
| Does it happen often enough? | At least weekly, so the build pays for itself | Twice a year, where doing it by hand is cheaper than building it |
| Can you write down how you decide? | The rule can be put on paper | The rule lives in one head and nobody can articulate it |
| Is there a human checkpoint? | A person reviews before anything goes out | It has to be right every time with nobody looking |
What a real one looks like
A federal agency needed the week's AI news filtered.
A US federal agency needed the week's top AI news filtered into a newsletter. Two constraints: very few project hours, and an unmanageable volume of AI coverage, most of it press releases and clickbait. The commercial monitoring tools were either too expensive or not specific enough. So we built this.
- Feedly surfaces the candidates. Trending articles pulled by keyword.
- An AI step validates each one. Is it genuinely about AI and healthcare, and not marketing? Anything that fails drops out.
- The survivors get scraped and scored. Against a custom rubric that outputs JSON, so they can be sorted in a database.
- A human screens the top ten to fourteen. Per category, then compiles the newsletter. That's the checkpoint, and it's the point.
What you get
What you get back.
- The process mapped first. Including the decision rules currently living in someone's head.
- The workflow built on tools your team can maintain. Not a bespoke system only we understand.
- A human checkpoint wherever output goes to a customer, a regulator or the public.
- Documentation written for the person who inherits it, not for us.
- A handover, after which you don't need us. That's the whole idea.
Before you hire us
What doesn't qualify.
Anything where the output is the judgment
If the value of the work is that a specific experienced person made the call, automating it removes the thing you were paying for.
Anything that happens twice a year
Do it by hand. Below weekly, the build costs more than the hours it saves, so there's nothing to recover.
Anything nobody can explain
If we can't get the decision rules out of the person who has them, there's nothing to build. We'll tell you this in the first conversation rather than three weeks in.
Anything that has to be right every time with no human looking
That isn't a workflow project, and we'd rather say so than pretend otherwise.
What it costs
What a workflow project costs.
Projects start at $3,000.
That buys one process mapped, automated, and handed over with documentation. What it costs above the floor depends on how many decision rules have to come out of someone's head first. Full detail is on the pricing page.
Related
If it's a different problem.
AI consulting
The whole picture. This is one spoke of it.
Custom AI development
When off-the-shelf tools can't get there.
AI content operations
When the repeated task is publishing.
Questions we get
What people usually ask.
Projects start at $3,000, which buys one process mapped, automated, and handed over with documentation. What it costs above that depends on how many decision rules have to come out of someone's head first. Full detail is on the pricing page.
No. We build on tools like Zapier and Make.com deliberately, so people who don't write code can maintain and adjust it. The handover is the point. After it, you don't need us.
Then getting it out of their head is the first half of the job, and the expensive half. If it genuinely can't be written down, there's nothing to build, and we'll tell you in the first conversation rather than three weeks in.
There's a human checkpoint wherever output goes to a customer, a regulator or the public. Automation that publishes with no one reviewing is how you find out what a model says on a bad day.
Run it through the four questions: a checkable right answer, at least weekly, a rule you can write down, and a human checkpoint. Fail one and we'll say so early, so you don't spend money finding out later.
Close
You'll know whether it's worth automating.
Tell us what the task is. We'll run it through the test and tell you honestly whether to build it or do it by hand.
We'd rather tell you no in the first conversation than three weeks in.