For if you've been lurking here and feel like you're missing half the conversation... --- 1️⃣ ICM (Interpreted Context Methodology) 💬 "I set up the ICM workspace once with numbered stages. Claude Code reads the folder, knows exactly what to do at each step, and I only review the output at each handoff." Jake Van Clief's framework for structuring AI agent workflows using folder-based architecture. ICM treats the filesystem itself as the orchestration layer — workflows are broken into numbered stage folders (e.g. 01_research, 02_drafting), each with a CONTEXT.md file that defines what inputs the agent receives, what it should do, and what output it should produce. Designed primarily for use with Claude Code rather than the Claude.ai chat interface. The methodology is model-agnostic and eliminates the need for complex coordination code by using plain text files and folder structure as the state machine. --- 2️⃣ Agent The most overloaded word in AI right now. Technically: a Claude session or piece of software that can take actions, not just respond. In this community it gets used loosely — anything from a folder-based specialist you consult manually to a fully autonomous system reading emails and triggering workflows without human input. When someone says "I'm building an agent," it's worth asking which kind they mean. 💬 "My agent reads the leads inbox hourly and drafts responses autonomously" is a very different build from "my specialist is a folder I open when I need it." --- 3️⃣ Agentic The adjective form of agent — but more specific. An agentic workflow is one where Claude takes a sequence of actions, observes the results, and acts again without waiting for human approval at each step. A single Q&A is not agentic. A system that reads an inbox, decides what to do, drafts a reply, and sends it is. The more agentic your build, the more important your rules.md becomes — autonomous action with bad constraints causes autonomous problems.

I wanted to share a win and a lesson I learned with you all, I just landed two new clients. A law firm 🧑‍⚖️ and a real estate office 🏘️. Here's the part I keep turning over in my head about what actually happened today. 1️⃣ The law firm wants in on structured workflows, the kind of thing a lot of us are building here. ✅ 2️⃣ The real estate office? They want tools and clean, no-hassle communication, but they don't want AI within a hundred feet of them. Same week, two clients, opposite ends of the spectrum. ✅ 💡This really made me think in the car ride home, because it forced me to lead with the problem, not the product. My job here wasn't to sell AI, it was to solve the problem in front of me, with whatever best fit the friction. One was agentic the other non-agentic. (With AI and Without AI) I have always loved learning, at first surface level, then I am always pulled into the rabbit hole! Being a generalist, or an autodidact, means I can meet a client wherever they are, instead of possibly dragging them somewhere they don't want to go. And having the domain knowledge, knowing THIER WORLD well enough to actually help, that's the thing that closes the deal. The presenting-it part? Still working on that one. 😅 🤔 One of the things I actually want to pass on isn't about either meeting. 💡 It's about the time spent before them. I've been researching how law firms and real estate offices operate, I study trusted industry peer verified sources, I sign up to industry newsletters, I go to networking events, and I get uncomfortable sometimes yes, still I go. In this case, since I can't bring you all along with me as I go, I will share some of the sites below: Note: Relevancy is a huge deal here, just like any other citation, if you are quoting a fact, gate, or trend in a vertical and it's from 2013 and its 2026, there is a good chance that in the 13 years that have passes, something changed. Law Office research - Make sure you are looking up the State Specific Sites in your area: