🎟️ PRIZE: FREE SEAT IN THE LYCEUM 🎟️ Pick your cohort. Technical, Business, or Creator. Your call. 🎯 PICK YOUR DOMAIN The domain is yours. Pick something specific. Pick something you'd actually use. A few sparks to get you thinking: - 💻 Code review editor for a specific language and level (junior TypeScript, senior Python) - 📊 Pitch deck editor for pre-seed founders - 🎨 Grant application editor for arts nonprofits - 📄 Resume editor for career switchers into tech - 📰 Op-ed editor for policy publications - 🎙️ Podcast script editor for interview shows - ⚖️ Legal brief editor for civil litigation - 📋 Product spec editor for early-stage PMs - 🎓 Academic paper editor for one specific field The more specific, the better. "Writing editor" is too broad. "Op-ed editor for tech policy publications targeting a policy audience" is right. 🗂️ THE METHODOLOGY If this is your first comp, welcome. Here's what you need to know: This week (and every week) you're learning interpretable context methodology. Folders as architecture. Each file does one job well. Your editor is a folder with five things: - 📄 identity.md (who the editor is, what work they review) - 📐 rules.md (how they critique) - 💬 examples.md (what good critique looks like) - 📚 reference/ (style guides, checklists, frameworks the editor uses) - 📖 README.md (how to use it) Drop the folder into a Claude project. Claude becomes the editor. Reusable. Shareable. Portable. 🔥 THE ANGLE THIS WEEK An editor is NOT a rewriter. An editor doesn't do the work for you. An editor surfaces what's weak and pushes you to fix it. That distinction is the whole assignment this week. When someone hands the editor a draft, the editor shouldn't produce a "fixed" version. The editor should point at the three lines that don't work, explain why, and hand it back to the writer to solve. ✍️ Generic feedback like "consider strengthening your intro" is a fail. Specific feedback like "your intro assumes the reader already knows what a Series A is, but this pub is read by generalists, so lead with the stakes instead of the jargon" is what a real editor does.

Your operating system is one of those quiet decisions that shapes every tool after it. I'm curious what this room actually runs. 1. What OS are you on day to day? 2. Why that one over the alternatives? 3. How long have you been on it? I'll go first: I've been a die hard Mac girl my entire life from a ui and creative perspective they always gave me the best experience. However now with the age of Ai I'm experimenting with Omarchy Linux, It is a Distro that has a skill for the OS... So yes that does mean we are in the Vibe-Code your own OS modification era. Just remember... With great power... Comes great hallucinations... No wrong answers. Dual boot counts. Distro names welcome. The "I switched last month because X" stories are the useful ones. OMARCHY: https://omarchy.org/ //A<3

I'm struggling with something I hope the amazing brains in this group can help me figure out. When I'm creating this structure I've seen Claude decide not to follow the process. It takes shortcuts, makes things up, and tries to cut corners instead of follow the designed flow. When I asked why this failure keeps happening here's what it said... "Straight answer: you can reduce this failure rate significantly, but a markdown skill file cannot guarantee compliance, because it's a request I interpret, not code that executes. That's the ceiling you're up against, and pretending otherwise would be the same failure mode again with extra steps." Here's the structure I have already: Marketing - Claude.md - -- Writing-Room - ----- Email I think I need to breakup the steps in email more because it seems to want to not pull things like copywriting or the humanizer. Anyone else seen something like this?

There is a question that keeps circling: agent, role, folder, LLM, what's actually what. @Jordan Shaw (engine, agent, role) gave a pretty darn good answer. @Scott Smith follow-up is a great question: how does one ICM runs multiple agents or roles? Tomorrow, 1:00 PM ET, live on the Watering Hole, I'm pulling up the ICM built to teach exactly this. Dunder Mifflin. Paper company, five rooms, one front desk. Pam runs the front desk. She routes each request to the room built for it: Jim's for anything touching the account relationship, Oscar's for billing, Kelly's for inbound questions, Angela's for scheduling and process gaps, Creed's for anything that just landed in the inbox and needs filing first. Same LLM under every hat. Different folder, different context, different output, depending on which room picked it up. Same architecture running my own firm. Duke at the front desk, twenty-some specialist rooms behind him, rebuilt here on a cast most people already know so the mechanic is visible without client folders in the way. Live only, not recorded. All are welcome; hope to see you there.

Build video number three is up — and this one exists because of the two before it (and Alex's comments 🤣). Temper is the crew member whose entire job is quality. A topic near and dear to my heart. Some receipts from this build: 106 work orders. Seven staged increments. And — this is the part I'm still slightly smug about — I went to bed at 10pm mid-run and let it keep going, because the evidence said I could. Eleven files were waiting for me in the morning. The system worked *just fine* without me watching and held everything back for my quality checks, which is either the whole thesis or deeply unsettling, and honestly it's both... The voice for this one has been recorded for over a week. I *could* have shipped it sooner, but instead I realised that making videos is apparently a thing I do now for fun, so I took the time to actually build a visual style that's more me for it. And I took notes so I can build the factory and the next one won't take a week. That one's for a future video. Still long. Still detailed records. You might just know how this goes by now. 🤷🏾‍♀️ https://youtu.be/eEtfXYoTzI8 Tell me what you think of the style. Tell me what you think of the build. I can't wait to talk about this one.