Resources
What to automate first.
Pick the boring, repeated, already-ruled work. Leave the judgment with a person.
- Fixed scope
- Human approval
- Documentation you keep
Quick answer
Automate the boring, repeated, already-ruled work first. Inbox triage. A follow-up draft. A CRM field after you confirm. A weekly number pull. Leave the judgment with a person. If you cannot name the reviewer, the rule, and the tool, stop.
The first workflow should be work you already do the same way twice a week. Not the once-a-quarter exception. Not the project you are still inventing. That is how a build stays small enough to review in one glance.
Decision framework
Start where the rule already exists. If two people do the same job two different ways, you do not have a workflow yet. I will write that on an Audit. I will not pretend a model will invent the SOP.
Start where a person can review in one glance. If the reviewer needs a meeting to understand the draft, the workflow is too wide. Shrink it until yes / edit / discard takes a minute. That is why I like follow-up drafts and inbox triage as first builds more than “automate operations.”
Start where the tools already exist. I build around the inbox, CRM, docs, and calendar you already pay for. A new platform is not the first move. Desktop chat can be enough for one person — see Claude Desktop vs a custom agent. A shared path needs a named reviewer and usually an Audit.
On the Audit I score each opportunity Value × Difficulty × Risk. The first build is usually high value, medium or low difficulty, and a risk I can gate with a named person. The sample Audit shows that scoring with a labeled fictional example.
Example
Illustrative example using fictional information—not customer work.
A consultant wants “AI for the practice.” The pile is actually three jobs: meeting notes, follow-up email, and an action list. The first build is not all three. It is the recap draft with a named approver. The email is second. The list waits until the recap path is boring. That is the consultant example on the homepage — one workflow, same review order.
When this applies
It applies when you can point at a repeating path and a person who will review. It applies if you are choosing between a $199 Fit review, the $1,250 Audit, and a $1,495 personal assistant. The Fit review answers “is this even a first workflow.” The Audit ranks the list. Personal is when the work is one human’s files and calendar, not a team system.
When it does not
It does not apply to judgment work: pricing exceptions, first-time complaints, hiring, money movement, legal sign-off, unsupervised public posts. Those are in when not to automate and the ungated list of ten.
It does not apply if your real ask is a full ops overhaul. I do not sell that. One practical workflow at a time.
Cost and risk
Current prices: Fit review $199, Audit $1,250, Personal $1,495, Business typically $3,750–$7,500 after the Audit. Details on AI agent setup cost and Audit cost.
The risk of picking the wrong first workflow is not a sunk vanity metric. It is a reviewer who stops reviewing, or a path that needs judgment you never wrote down. I would rather tell you to leave it alone. Custom AI engagements commonly run well beyond this range. Effortless Agents is intentionally scoped around one practical workflow at a time.
FAQ
Should I start with Personal or the Audit?
One person’s files and calendar: Personal. A shared company path: Audit first.
What if I cannot pick the first workflow?
That is what the $199 Fit review and the tell-me form are for. I will give you a straight answer.
Do you pick the idea with the biggest payoff?
I score value, difficulty, and risk. I show the work on the sample Audit instead of ranking the list with a vanity hour count.
Next step
Write the repeating task, the software, and who reviews. Tell me your workflow, or buy the Audit if you already know you want the ranked map. Then read the matching example page before you widen scope.