I’ve been thinking about something adjacent to ICM that I’m calling Context Shaping. ICM makes a lot of sense to me as a way to make agent work visible: files, intermediate artifacts, editable surfaces, and a workflow the human can inspect or participate in. But I keep coming back to another layer that feels separate: Before the agent works, how is the context shaped? In real business workflows, the raw context is messy. It may live across email, calls, meeting notes, documents, spreadsheets, CRM records, support tickets, internal notes, and prior decisions. But I don’t think the answer is to just dump all of that into a giant context window or “business memory.” The harder problem seems to be shaping the right context for the specific workflow step. For example: What should be included? What should be excluded? What should be summarized? What should be redacted? What is only visible to certain roles? What previous decisions matter right now? What context is stale, misleading, or no longer safe to use? What does the agent need to know for this task, without giving it everything? From my point of view, this becomes especially important when agents are operating around real business workflows: handoffs, approvals, follow-up, estimates, customer conversations, internal tasks, project coordination, or anything where the wrong context can create bad decisions. So the distinction I’m playing with is: ICM gives the agent and human a visible workspace. Context Shaping prepares the context pack that enters that workspace. That context pack might include source references, summaries, constraints, permissions, open questions, excluded information, and a record of why certain context was selected. I’m curious if anyone here is thinking about this problem. Are you treating context as something the agent retrieves on its own, or as something that should be deliberately shaped before each workflow step?

Hey everyone, building in public and could use honest eyes from people who actually get this space. I'm building a white-label AI front desk that agencies resell to local businesses. I made two completely different landing pages and I genuinely can't pick: A) the classic SaaS page: https://a.konvy.ai B) a scroll story, the page plays as you scroll: https://b.konvy.ai Not selling in this post, just asking for critique: which one would make you keep reading, and where exactly do you drop off? Comment A or B plus one sentence why. Brutal beats polite. Mods: if links aren't allowed here, say the word and I'll delete or move them to a comment. UPDATE! Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and experiences. I collected more than 200+ feedback from various channels and it helped a ton iin making fine grained updates and polishing the experience for variant B. I would like to explain why the variant B actually exists, I have be told by many that I try to go against the grain and challenge the safe, status quo, and force others to think differently. That is what I am trying to do here. White-label is an important feature that lets agencies built their own brand, but it IS in my opinion important to walk and understand the journey first before jumping on the pricing and features. Pricing is extremely competitive, I built the platform from scratch over the last 2 years optimised for latency, pricing and solving real problems for businesses without the fluff. Again thank you so much for help shape this experience, I promise more to come soon.

Figma... I just don't care for it, it's great for collaboration amongst a team, etc, but I don't want to be confined to it's structure and limited capabilities. For every new tool that can work a bit faster, you always lose one primary component: CONTROL.... and Adobe Illustrator, what I can say, they try... but you end up spending more time managing layers than you do drawing. So, the real KING remains throned and always will; Corel DRAW, the absolute total answer to everything vector. This Legacy platform is central to everything I do. Design, planning, everything starts here. Here's a shot of my custom planning board design. I gave you only a piece of the actual workflow view, so you can get the idea, but there's so much I can't show you. A complete schematic of the entire logic before one line is written. A visual roadmap to success for every project. This is the way (if you can draw). (btw, I don't even view layers in my workspace GUI, in Corel Draw it's useless and unnecessary.)

Something clicked for me across two recent threads here with @Mads Skak and @Alex Brown, so I mapped it out as a table. I've been trying to work out where I actually need to sit when an agent is working through files. Turns out that's not a preference, it's a property of the task. Cynefin classifies problems by how predictable they are; ICM gives you the instrument for each type. Put them side by side and you can see where the human needs to sit. The row that matters most is **Complex**. When there's no pre-known right answer, forcing a pass/fail check into a markdown file is a lie. The pipeline will look gated and be nothing of the sort. For that work you don't review the final output, you live inside the loop and co-edit the intermediate files as they form. Every output is an edit surface. **Complicated** work is different. There is a right answer, binary in principle, but only human judgement can confirm it. So the worker never self-certifies. You sit at the gates, start and end, and stay out of the execution loop. **Clear** work is machine-checkable and needs no human at all. That's most of the background volume (Jake's 10/30/60 split). **Chaotic** is not a delegation situation. One-line advice at most, human hands on. And the one I nearly missed: **Disorder**. If you can't tell which domain you're in, treat it as Complex until it declares itself. Misclassification is where the damage happens. The long game is moving work down the table, Chaotic towards Clear, as probing stabilises it. But only what has genuinely stabilised. Force the move and you fall off the cliff. Table below. Tell me where this is wrong.

AI tools seem to evolve every week. It's easy to get caught up trying every new model, app, or feature that gets released. But I have found that the biggest improvements usually don't come from constantly switching tools they come from building simple habits and workflows that you use consistently. For example, it could be: - Using AI to organize your notes. - Creating reusable prompts. - Automating repetitive tasks. - Summarizing meetings or research. - Brainstorming ideas before starting a project. What's one AI habit, workflow, or prompt you use regularly that genuinely saves you time? Not necessarily the most advanced just something practical that has made your work a little easier. I think a thread of simple, proven ideas could end up being more valuable than another list of "must-try" AI tools.