Tools & utilities

Stuck in a revision loop? There's a tool to get you out.

Write it, check it, distribute it, or set something up once and let it run. Every card below opens to show the tool in action.

Open a category to see its tools.

GrantWriter

GRW

Turns a grant submission into a structured, standards-compliant application.

See the demo ›

Write it: GRW

A grant application has to answer every funder criterion precisely and still make a compelling case. Holding both in your head while you draft and cross-check takes hours.

Cross-checks your submission against every funder question and requirement
Flags every gap and catches data that doesn't add up
Drafts the application section by section, ready for your review

Here's a fictitious grant application, checked against a real funder's criteria.

The intake Fictitious example

Hartley Community Foundation: Community Resilience Fund 2026 About this fund The Community Resilience Fund supports organisations working to reduce food insecurity and strengthen community infrastructure in the Eastern Shore region. Grants of $25,000–$60,000 are available. One funding round per year. Funding priorities • Direct food relief at scale • Efficient distribution reaching underserved communities • Measurable impact on household food security • Sustainable programme models Required application sections 1. Statement of need: Who is affected and why existing provision is insufficient 2. Project description: What you will do, where, and how 3. Organisational capacity: Why your organisation is positioned to deliver this 4. Evaluation plan: How you will measure and report impact 5. Budget narrative: Line-item breakdown with justification Required funder questions (answer within relevant sections) Q1. How many households will this project reach, and how frequently? Q2. How does the project extend reach beyond existing fixed provision? Q3. What is the projected total food distributed (pounds) and households served across the grant period? Word limit: 400 words per section Deadline: 30 September 2026 Eligibility: Registered nonprofits operating in the Eastern Shore region for a minimum of three years

Project: Mobile Pantry Expansion, Phase 2 Organisation: Eastern Shore Foodbank Grant ask: $50,000 Contact: Director of Programmes Statement of need About 750,000 people on the Eastern Shore don't have enough food. Big problem for older people and families without cars. Eight communities have nothing nearby. Our fixed locations don't reach them. Project description We want to add two more mobile pantry vehicles and run monthly distributions across the eight underserved communities. We'll co-locate with health clinics and libraries where we can. Routes designed around highest-need postcodes. Volunteers run the sites. Organisational capacity 40+ years operating. Know what we're doing. Good partners. 2025 annual report: 9.4 million pounds distributed, 142 partner organisations. Mobile distribution already part of what we do. Evaluation Post-distribution survey at each site. Measuring food access and healthy eating behaviour change. 2,000 respondents over 12 months. Run by volunteer coordinators. Success looks like 1,200 households per month. Eight new communities reached. Volunteers turning up.

Budget breakdown Vehicles and fuel .............. $10,000 Food and supplies .............. $20,000 Volunteer coordination .......... $6,000 Nutrition education materials ... $2,000 Survey and evaluation ........... $6,000 Admin and reporting ............. $4,000 --------- Total .......................... $55,000 Staff time (in-kind): $20,000 Covered by organisational operating budget

GrantWriter output: Mobile Pantry Expansion

Draft application: working version with flags

OrganisationEastern Shore Foodbank

FunderHartley Community Foundation 2026

Grant askSee Flag 2

Deadline30 September 2026

Run date–

ToolGRW V4

Sections drafted

Flags raised

Hard stops

Checks run

✓ Funder alignment check3 questions

Funder question	In submission	Verdict
How many households will this project reach, and how frequently?	1,200 households per month across eight sites	✓ Covered
How does the project extend reach beyond existing fixed provision?	Mobile vehicles, eight underserved communities, co-located with existing services	✓ Covered
What is the projected total food distributed (pounds) and households served across the grant period?	Not answered. Evaluation covers survey methodology only.	⚠ Flagged

✎ Draft application7 sections

Mobile Pantry Expansion: Community Resilience Fund 2026

Eastern Shore Foodbank · Hartley Community Foundation · Grant ask: see Flag 2 · Deadline: 30 Sep 2026

1. Statement of need

89 words

An estimated 750,000 residents of the Eastern Shore face food insecurity, with rural and older-adult households disproportionately affected. Eight communities have no regular food distribution point within reasonable travel distance, and many residents lack access to personal vehicles. Fixed Foodbank locations serve those who can reach them. They cannot reach the households that need them most. This project addresses that gap directly, not by replacing what exists, but by going where existing provision does not.

2. Project description

104 words

The Mobile Pantry Expansion adds two distribution vehicles to the Eastern Shore Foodbank's existing fleet and establishes fixed monthly distribution schedules across eight communities currently without regular access. Sites are co-located with health clinics, libraries, and community centres to reduce barriers and maximise attendance. Routes are designed around the highest-need postcodes in the Eastern Shore Community Needs Assessment 2024. Each site is staffed by trained volunteer coordinators, supported by Foodbank programme staff. Distribution runs monthly at each site, with additional runs scheduled in the highest-demand locations. All sites are accessible by public transport.

3. Organisational capacity

78 words

The Eastern Shore Foodbank has operated for over 40 years and distributed 9.4 million pounds of food in 2025 through a network of 142 partner organisations (2025 Annual Report). Mobile distribution is an existing and proven capability. This project extends an established model to eight new communities. It does not require new infrastructure, new systems, or new staff. It requires vehicles, fuel, food, and coordination, all within the Foodbank's operational competency.

4. Goals and objectives

86 words

The Mobile Pantry Expansion pursues three objectives over the grant period. Objective 1: Extend reach. Establish fixed monthly distribution at each of the eight target communities, achieving consistent coverage within six months of project launch. Objective 2: Increase households served. Reach 1,200 households per month by month nine, measured by attendance records at each site. Objective 3: Sustain delivery. Embed mobile distribution into the Foodbank's operating model so that all eight sites continue beyond the grant period without further external funding.

5. Evaluation plan

91 words⚠ Flags 1 & 3

Post-distribution surveys will be administered at each of the eight community sites by trained volunteer coordinators. Target: 2,000 respondents across 12 months, measuring food access improvement and healthy eating behaviour change against baseline measures taken at project launch. Results will be reported quarterly to the Hartley Community Foundation. ⚠ Flag 1: projected total pounds and households not yet added

GRW note: This section is drafted from available inputs but the evaluation design has weaknesses a funder at this level will likely challenge. See Flag 3 for specific issues and suggested fixes before submitting.

6. Budget narrative

Line item	Amount
Vehicles and fuel	$10,000
Food and supplies	$20,000
Volunteer coordination	$6,000
Nutrition education materials	$2,000
Survey and evaluation	$6,000
Administration and reporting	$4,000
Line-item total ⚠ Flag 2	$48,000
Staff time: in-kind (operating budget)	$20,000

7. Executive summary

97 words

The Eastern Shore Foodbank requests $⚠ see Flag 2 from the Hartley Community Foundation to extend its proven mobile food distribution model to eight underserved Eastern Shore communities. The project reaches 1,200 households per month, operates through existing infrastructure and volunteer networks, and is designed to continue beyond the grant period without additional external funding. The Foodbank has operated for over 40 years, distributed 9.4 million pounds of food in 2025, and has the capacity, systems, and community relationships to deliver this project at scale from day one.

⚠ Flags for review3 flags

#	Field	Issue	Suggestion
⚠ 1	Funder question Q3	The funder's third required question asks for projected total pounds distributed and households served across the grant period. The evaluation section as submitted does not answer this. It describes a survey methodology only.	Project total pounds from the 9.4M annual figure pro-rated to the grant period. Add a projected household count. Both figures strengthen the Statement of Need and close the funder question.
⚠ 2	Budget arithmetic	Intake states a total of $55,000. The six itemised lines add to $48,000. The $7,000 difference is unexplained. Grant ask left blank. A submission cannot go to a funder with a mismatched total.	Confirm the correct total with your finance lead. If a line is missing, add it. If the stated total was wrong, correct it to $48,000. The grant ask must match the budget exactly before submission.
⚠ 3	Evaluation quality	The evaluation plan has three weaknesses: (1) no baseline measure, and without a pre-distribution survey the plan cannot demonstrate change; (2) “behaviour change” is named as an outcome but not defined or measured; (3) no projected impact total, which the funder requires.	Add a baseline survey at project launch. Define the behaviour change metric with a specific measurable target. Add projected total pounds and households. GRW has drafted this section as far as inputs allow. These additions require your input before this section is submission-ready.

→ What to do next3 actions

Flag 2 is the most important thing to resolve before anything else. A submission with a budget that does not add up to the grant ask will not survive an initial review. One conversation with your finance lead closes it. Flags 1 and 3 are connected: both need a projected impact figure that does not currently exist in your inputs. That figure is derivable from your 2025 Annual Report and will strengthen both the funder alignment check and the evaluation section significantly.

Resolve Flag 2 first: confirm the correct budget total with your finance lead. Update the intake and re-run.

Resolve Flags 1 and 3: use your 2025 Annual Report to project total pounds and households. Add a baseline measure and define your behaviour change metric. Update the Evaluation section and re-run.

When all flags are resolved, say final and GRW produces your branded, submission-ready output.

↳ Session break

GRW-DEMO · Mobile Pantry Expansion · Draft delivered

This is a demo run. In a live session, your submission is one file. Upload it back in and every re-run updates from there. Flags clear as you resolve them. When you say final, GRW produces your branded HTML output ready to send.

→ To continue in a live session

Update your submission file with the resolved flag information, then upload it back in

Open a new chat, paste the GRW prompt, and say update

When all flags are resolved, say final to produce your submission-ready output

Curious how this would work with your own documents? Want to know more?

BriefWriter

BRW

Drafts the brief from what you have, flags what's missing, and recalibrates when things change.

See the demo ›

Write it: BRW

You never have all the information when you need to start writing a brief.

Reads everything you give it, including what's buried in a notes section
Finds the gaps and carries them into the brief as flags, so nothing gets lost
Run it again when things change. It recalibrates the whole brief in moments

Here's a fictitious project intake.

The intake Fictitious example

Client: Castleford Academy Trust Project: Digital Communications Audit Type: External client Budget: Around £15k, not confirmed yet Timeline: September to December 2026 Contact: Someone in the comms team, to confirm Background The Trust runs six schools. They've got a website, a parent app, and they send newsletters but nobody really knows if any of it is working. Ofsted flagged parent communication as a weakness. They want to know what's actually landing and what isn't before they spend money on a new platform. Our role Independent audit. We review what they have, talk to parents and staff, and tell them what to fix. We're not implementing anything, just the review.

Objectives • Audit all current digital comms channels: website, parent app, newsletters, social • Talk to parents across at least three schools to find out what they actually read and what they ignore • Interview comms staff and headteachers to understand what they think is working • Benchmark against two comparable academy trusts • Produce recommendations they can act on without a big budget Deliverables • Audit report: what exists, what works, what doesn't • Parent research summary: what we heard • Recommendations paper: prioritised, costed, owner assigned • Presentation to Trust board

Constraints • Budget not confirmed: client said "around £15k" in the kick-off call • Client contact TBC: we spoke to the CEO but the day-to-day contact is someone in comms, name not given • Ofsted report not shared yet: Trust said they'd send it, haven't • Can't interview parents during school holidays, so the research window is tight • We're not doing implementation. The brief needs to be clear about this or scope will creep Assumptions • Trust provides access to website analytics and app usage data at project start • Parent research can be done in September before half term • Board presentation in December, date TBC

BriefWriter: Digital Communications Audit

Project brief: working version with flags

ClientCastleford Academy Trust

TypeExternal client

BudgetSee Flag 1

TimelineSeptember – December 2026

Run date–

ToolBRW V4

Sections drafted

Flags raised

Hard stops

Checks run

✎ Project brief: 11 sections11 sections

Digital Communications Audit: Project Brief

Castleford Academy Trust · External Client · Budget: see Flag 1 · September – December 2026

A: Background and context

94 words

Castleford Academy Trust operates six schools across the region and currently communicates with parents through a website, a parent-facing app, and regular newsletters. A recent Ofsted inspection identified parent communication as an area of weakness. The Trust has not yet audited the effectiveness of its existing digital channels. Before committing to a new platform or system, the Trust has commissioned an independent review to establish what is working, what is not, and where the greatest improvements are available at lowest cost.

B: Objectives

78 words

Audit all current digital communication channels including the website, parent app, newsletters, and social media presence. Conduct structured research with parents across a minimum of three schools to understand what they read, what they act on, and what they ignore. Interview communications staff and headteachers to understand internal perceptions of effectiveness. Benchmark the Trust’s approach against two comparable academy trusts. Produce a prioritised set of recommendations, each costed and assigned to an owner.

C: Scope

66 words

In scope: Website, parent app, newsletters, and social media channels. Parent research across three schools minimum. Staff interviews. Benchmarking against two comparable trusts. Recommendations paper and board presentation.

Out of scope: Platform procurement or implementation. Staff internal communications. Any work arising from the Ofsted report beyond the communications findings. ⚠ Flag 2: Ofsted report not yet received

D: Approach

81 words

The review uses four methods in sequence. Desktop review of all existing digital channels and available analytics, including website data and app usage statistics provided by the Trust at project start. Parent research: structured interviews or focus groups across a minimum of three schools, completed before the October half-term window closes. Staff interviews: headteachers and communications staff across the Trust. Benchmarking: review of two comparable academy trusts, focusing on channel mix and parent engagement approach. Draft recommendations reviewed with the Trust before finalisation.

E: Deliverables

54 words⚠ Flag 3

Audit report covering all current channels with gap analysis. Target: October 2026. Parent research summary. Target: October 2026. Recommendations paper with prioritisation matrix, each recommendation tied to owner, cost, and timeframe. Target: November 2026. Presentation to Trust board. Target: December 2026, date to be confirmed.

F: Team and responsibilities

58 words

Erica Dyson Services leads all workstreams and is responsible for delivery across all four outputs. Castleford Academy Trust provides: access to website analytics and app usage data at project start; introductions to headteachers and parent representatives for interview scheduling; availability of the board for a December presentation. Client contact: ⚠ Flag 2: to be confirmed

G: Budget summary

52 words

Budget envelope: ⚠ Flag 1: not confirmed

The budget covers desktop review, parent research, staff interviews, benchmarking, report production, and the board presentation. No provision for platform procurement, implementation support, or a full-scale parent survey. Any additional scope requires a change request.

H: Assumptions and constraints

72 words

Assumptions: The Trust provides access to website analytics and app usage data at project start. Parent research can be conducted in September before the October half-term. The board presentation takes place in December 2026.

Constraints: Budget not yet confirmed in writing (see Flag 1). Client day-to-day contact not yet named (see Flag 2). Ofsted report not yet received (see Flag 2). Parent research window closes at October half-term. Scope is audit and recommendations only, with no implementation.

I: Success criteria

48 words

Recommendations accepted by Trust leadership with fewer than 20% requiring major revision. Parent research completed across a minimum of three schools before October half-term. All four deliverables submitted on schedule. Internal ownership of each recommendation assigned before project close.

J: Next steps

55 words

Budget confirmed in writing by Castleford Academy Trust. Client day-to-day contact named and introduced. Ofsted report shared with Erica Dyson Services. Website analytics and app usage data provided at project start. Parent research scheduling: introductions to headteachers arranged for September interviews. Board presentation date confirmed for December.

K: Executive summary

79 words

Castleford Academy Trust commissions an independent audit of its digital communications following an Ofsted inspection that identified parent communication as a weakness. Erica Dyson Services will review all current channels, conduct parent research across three schools, benchmark against comparable trusts, and produce a prioritised set of recommendations the Trust can implement. Work runs from September to December 2026. Budget to be confirmed. This brief is a working draft. Three items require resolution before sign-off.

⚠ Flags for review3 flags

#	Field	Issue	Action
⚠ 1	Budget	Budget stated as “around £15k” in the intake. A brief sent to a client without a confirmed budget figure is a scope risk. BRW has left the figure blank throughout the brief rather than insert an unconfirmed number.	Get written confirmation of the budget before sending this brief. If the figure is genuinely still open, add a budget range and a note that final scope is subject to confirmation.
⚠ 2	Client contact and Ofsted report	Two related gaps picked up from your constraints notes. The day-to-day client contact is not named. The Ofsted report was promised but not received. BRW has read both gaps, carried them into the brief, and flagged them here so they don’t get lost in the rush to send something out.	Chase the CEO for the comms contact name before sending this brief. Request the Ofsted report at the same time.
⚠ 3	Board presentation date	The board presentation is the final deliverable and the date is unconfirmed. If the board only meets quarterly, December may not be available.	Confirm the December board date before sign-off. If no December meeting is scheduled, agree an alternative date and update the brief.

→ What to do next3 actions

Flag 1 is the most important to resolve before this brief goes anywhere near a client. Flags 2 and 3 are lower risk but both affect the quality of what you send.

Get written budget confirmation from the Trust. Update the intake and re-run.

Get the client contact name and the Ofsted report. Both go into the brief directly.

Confirm the December board date. When all three flags are clear, say final and BRW produces your client-ready output.

↳ Session break

BRW-DEMO · Digital Communications Audit · Draft delivered

This is a demo run. In a live session, your brief is one file. Upload it back in and every re-run updates from there. When you say final, BRW produces your client-ready output.

Curious how this would work with your own documents? Want to know more?

Feature Entry

FTE

Turns tickets into drafted tracker rows, checked against your writing standards.

See the demo ›

Write it: FTE

Reads your tickets, creates tracker rows with draft text, and applies writing standards. It loops until you approve, so nothing goes out without your sign-off.

Five fictitious tickets for a fictitious visitor management product.

Release tickets: Vantage VM v3.1 Fictitious example

VM-1042 New feature Desktop UG

Visitor pre-registration

Hosts can now register visitors in advance and generate a QR code that the visitor presents on arrival. The QR code is valid for a configurable window (default: 24 hours). Reception staff can scan the code to complete check-in without manual data entry. Requires email address at registration.

VM-1058 Enhancement Desktop UG

Configurable badge expiry warning

Operators can now set a warning threshold for visitor badge expiry. When a badge is within the threshold period, a visual indicator appears on the reception dashboard. Default threshold: 15 minutes. Configurable in Site Settings. Applies to all active visitor badges on site. Note from ticket: this replaces a hardcoded 10-minute alert. Confirm whether the old alert needs a deprecation note in the UG.

VM-1063 New feature Desktop UG + Datasheet

Recurring visit schedules

Hosts can create recurring visit schedules for regular visitors: daily, weekly, or monthly. The system generates pre-registration records automatically for each occurrence. Hosts receive a confirmation email for each generated record. Recurring schedules are managed from the visitor profile page. Screenshot of the schedule configuration screen required.

VM-1071 Enhancement Web client UG

Bulk visitor export: CSV

Reception managers can export visitor records to CSV from the visitor log. Filters applied in the log view are respected in the export. Export includes: visitor name, host, check-in time, check-out time, badge number, purpose of visit. Maximum 5,000 records per export.

VM-1089 Fix Release Notes

Check-out time not recorded on manual sign-out

When reception staff manually signed out a visitor using the Sign out button, the check-out time was not recorded in the visitor log. The log entry showed a blank check-out time. Fix applied: check-out time now records correctly on manual sign-out. Affected all versions from v2.8. All clients.

Feature Tracker: Vantage VM v3.1

ReleaseVantage VM v3.1

Tickets5

Doc targets3

Date–

This output was produced under defined rules, not by unguided AI. It works only from supplied material, never inventing facts or claims, and is reviewed and approved by the user before issue to a third party.

Total tickets

For review

Flagged

1: Desktop UG3 tickets

Feature	Section target	Type	Status	Flags
Visitor pre-registration VM-1042	Section 5.2: Managing visitors	New feature	For review	–	View draft ↓
What New workflow: hosts register visitors in advance and generate a QR code. Reception staff scan the code on arrival to complete check-in without manual entry. Where Desktop client › visitor management › new Pre-register visitor option Conditions Requires visitor email address at registration. QR code valid for configurable window (default: 24 hours). Graphic Screenshot of pre-registration form and QR code display screen. New for v3.1. Draft text: section 5.2 Pre-register a visitor You can register a visitor in advance and send them a QR code to present on arrival. Reception staff scan the code to complete check-in without re-entering the visitor's details. Pre-registration requires the visitor's email address. The QR code is valid for a configurable period from the scheduled arrival time (default: 24 hours). To pre-register a visitor: 1. In the visitor management screen, click Pre-register visitor. 2. Enter the visitor's name, email address, and scheduled arrival time. 3. Select the host and the purpose of visit. 4. Click Generate code. The system sends the QR code to the visitor by email. When the visitor arrives, reception staff scan the code using the check-in screen to complete the process.
Configurable badge expiry warning VM-1058	Section 7.1: Reception dashboard	Enhancement	For review	1 flag	View draft ↓
What Operators can now set a custom warning threshold for visitor badge expiry. A visual indicator appears on the reception dashboard when a badge is within the threshold period. Where Desktop client › Site Settings › Badge expiry warning field. Indicator appears on reception dashboard. Conditions Applies to all active visitor badges on site. Default threshold: 15 minutes. Graphic Update existing reception dashboard screenshot to show expiry warning indicator. !This feature replaces a hardcoded 10-minute alert from earlier versions. Controller to confirm: does section 7.1 need a deprecation note explaining the change from the old fixed alert? Draft text: section 7.1 Badge expiry warning The reception dashboard displays a visual warning when a visitor badge is close to expiry. The warning threshold is configurable in Site Settings. Default threshold: 15 minutes. To configure the badge expiry warning threshold: 1. Open Site Settings. 2. In the Badge expiry warning field, enter the number of minutes before expiry that the warning should appear. 3. Click Save. The warning indicator appears in the active visitor list on the reception dashboard for any badge within the threshold period.
Recurring visit schedules VM-1063	Section 5.4: Visitor profiles	New feature	For review	–	View draft ↓
What Hosts can create recurring visit schedules (daily, weekly, monthly) for regular visitors. Pre-registration records are generated automatically for each occurrence. Where Desktop client › visitor profile page › new Recurring schedule section Conditions Host receives a confirmation email for each generated record. Schedule managed from the visitor profile page. Graphic Screenshot of recurring schedule configuration screen required. New for v3.1. Draft text: section 5.4 Set up a recurring visit schedule For regular visitors, you can create a recurring schedule that generates pre-registration records automatically. Schedules can repeat daily, weekly, or monthly. The host receives a confirmation email for each generated pre-registration record. To create a recurring schedule: 1. Open the visitor's profile page. 2. In the Recurring schedule section, click Add schedule. 3. Select the frequency: daily, weekly, or monthly. 4. Set the start date and, if required, an end date. 5. Click Save. The system creates pre-registration records for each occurrence. You can view and manage them from the visitor profile page.

2: Web client UG1 ticket

Feature	Section target	Type	Status	Flags
Bulk visitor export: CSV VM-1071	Section 3.6: Visitor log	Enhancement	For review	–	View draft ↓
What New Export CSV button in the visitor log. Exports records matching the current filter. Maximum 5,000 records per export. Where Web client › visitor log › toolbar Conditions Filters applied in the log are respected. Export includes: visitor name, host, check-in time, check-out time, badge number, purpose of visit. Graphic Screenshot of visitor log toolbar showing Export CSV button. Draft text: section 3.6 Export visitor records You can export visitor log records to a CSV file. The export includes all records that match the active filter: visitor name, host, check-in time, check-out time, badge number, and purpose of visit. The maximum export size is 5,000 records. Apply a filter before exporting if your log exceeds this limit. To export visitor records: 1. In the web client, open the visitor log. 2. Apply any filters required. 3. Click Export CSV. 4. Save the file to your preferred location.

3: Release notes only1 ticket

Feature	Section target	Type	Status	Flags
Check-out time not recorded on manual sign-out VM-1089	Release notes: Fixes	Fix	For review	–	View draft ↓
What Fix for check-out time not recording when reception staff used the manual Sign out button. Affected all clients from v2.8. Release notes entry One-line fix entry. No user guide update required. Draft text: release notes Fixed an issue where the check-out time was not recorded in the visitor log when reception staff used the manual Sign out button. Affected all clients from v2.8. (VM-1089)

The writer places the approved text

FTE tells the writer exactly what to do: section 5.2, section 7.1, section 3.6. They copy the approved draft text and place it in the document. That part is theirs. Once the user guides are updated, Release Packager assembles the release output from the approved tracker entries.

From ticket notes to section 5.2: what FTE does with developer shorthand

Ticket (developer notes)

VM-1042: preReg flow adds preRegistration() to visitorObj. sets isPreReg flag = true on create. QR token generated via genQRToken(visitorId, expiry). expiry param configurable (default 86400s). scanQR() on checkin screen maps token → visitor record + auto-populates fields. requires email field (!null) at registration. see preRegController.js + QRScanHandler.java no UX spec yet: devs used modal from existing addVisitor() flow

After: section 5.2

5.2 Managing visitors To add a new visitor, click Add visitor on the visitor management screen and complete the required fields. Visitors can be checked in on arrival using the check-in screen. Pre-register a visitor You can register a visitor in advance and send them a QR code to present on arrival. Reception staff scan the code to complete check-in without re-entering the visitor's details. Pre-registration requires the visitor's email address. The QR code is valid for a configurable period from the scheduled arrival time (default: 24 hours). To pre-register a visitor: 1. In the visitor management screen, click Pre-register visitor. 2. Enter the visitor's name, email address, and scheduled arrival time. 3. Click Generate code...

Session complete

Feature Entry complete: Vantage VM v3.1

5 tickets processed across 3 document targets. 1 flagged for your review (badge expiry deprecation note).

The writer places the approved draft text into sections 5.2, 7.1, and 3.6. Once that's done, the tracker rows are ready for Release Packager.

On your own tickets, this run delivers a tracker file plus revision history and run logs.

Curious how this would work with your own documents? Want to know more?

You Said Yes

YSY

Turns a commitment into a starting point, with continuity between sessions.

See the demo ›

Write it: YSY

You committed to something and now you're staring at a blank page.

Interviews you to draw out what you know, what you've promised, and the constraints you're working with
Turns the conversation directly into finished outputs, not just notes

Here's a fictitious speaking commitment. Watch You Said Yes turn it into a poster and speaker notes.

YSY

You Said Yes

Let's figure out what that means

YSY

Outputs

FutureTalks 2026

AI at Work,
AI at Home

The line is blurring.
Are you ready?

Keynote

Jeremy Doe

Keynote Speaker

Date

14 Oct 2026

Time

10:00 AM

Venue

Main Stage

City

London

futuretalks.io

FutureTalks 2026: Speaker Notes

AI at Work, AI at Home

Jeremy Doe · Keynote · 14 Oct 2026

Opening: The line has already moved

5 min

Open with a show of hands: who checked work email before getting out of bed?

The boundary didn't disappear. AI dissolved it.

Frame the question: problem, opportunity, or both?

AI at work: what's actually changing

10 min

The scrubbed bullets: share that example. Your audience will relate to it.

Not automation, augmentation. Tasks that disappear vs judgment that stays.

Who owns the output when AI wrote the first draft?

AI at home: the part nobody talks about

10 min

Your daughter and homework: use the unresolved question. It's more powerful than a confident answer.

The intimacy problem: what happens when the tool knows you better than your colleagues?

Children growing up with AI as default. What does that produce?

Close: are you ready?

10 min

The question isn't whether AI will change how you work and live. It already has.

Are you shaping it, or just reacting to it?

Leave them with one thing to do differently tomorrow morning.

Curious how this would work with your own documents? Want to know more?

ClearStory

CLS

Turns a messy conversation thread into one neutral, structured record.

See the demo ›

Write it: CLS

Messages spread across platforms. Reading them and stitching them together mentally eats time you don't have.

Reads a thread and returns a fixed structure every time: what's happened, where each person stands, what's still open
Works to a defined framework, not a mood, and strips out flattery and insults equally

Here's a fictitious WhatsApp thread from a community garden committee: six people, three tangled topics.

The thread Fictional example

WhatsApp: Riverdale Community Garden Committee 14 May 2026 Rachel Cohen [09:03] Can someone PLEASE explain why the tool shed has been locked since Tuesday. I had volunteers coming in and they couldn't get to anything. David Okafor [09:11] It was left open overnight last week. Marcus locked it for safety. Rachel Cohen [09:12] Nobody told me. That's the problem. Nobody tells me anything. Marcus Patel [09:45] Rachel I sent a message to the group on Monday. It's right there above this one if you scroll up. Rachel Cohen [09:47] I don't always see every message. There's too many messages in this group. Janet Mills [09:52] I saw the message. I thought everyone did. Sarah Brennan [10:02] Ok can we not do this here. The issue is we need a key system. Marcus is right to lock it but we need a process. David Okafor [10:04] Agreed. Who has keys currently? Marcus, me, and who else? Marcus Patel [10:06] Me, David, and Janet. Rachel you were supposed to get one cut in March. Rachel Cohen [10:08] I said I would do it when I had time. I've been dealing with the water meter situation. Janet Mills [10:10] Speaking of which, did anyone call the council again? I thought David was doing that. David Okafor [10:12] I called them. They said two to three weeks. That was three weeks ago. Sarah Brennan [10:15] So we need: key list updated, Rachel to get a key cut, and some kind of notice system so people know when things are locked. Can someone own this? David Okafor [10:18] I can chase the key list. Marcus can you be the point person for locking notices going forward? Marcus Patel [10:20] Fine. But I need everyone to actually check the group. Rachel Cohen [10:22] I check it. I just missed one message. Tom Ellison [10:23] Hi all, just catching up. What happened with the composting bins? I thought we agreed last month to order two more. Sarah Brennan [10:24] That's a separate thread Tom. Let's not mix it in here. Tom Ellison [10:25] Sorry. But has anyone ordered them? David Okafor [10:26] Not yet. Budget hasn't been signed off. Janet Mills [10:27] Who needs to sign off the budget? Is that Rachel? Rachel Cohen [10:28] Yes but I need the quotes first. Did anyone get quotes? Marcus Patel [10:29] I got one quote. Sent it to the group two weeks ago. Did nobody see it? Tom Ellison [10:30] I didn't see it. Rachel Cohen [10:31] I didn't see it either. Can you resend? Sarah Brennan [10:32] Ok let's get back on track. Tool shed, water meter, composting bins. Three topics. Can we agree actions for each? David Okafor [10:34] Tool shed: Marcus sends notice when locking. Rachel gets key cut by end of month. Water meter: David drafts escalation letter to council this week. Composting: Marcus resends quote. Rachel signs off budget once she has it. Marcus Patel [10:35] Agreed. Janet Mills [10:35] Works for me. Tom Ellison [10:36] 👍 Rachel Cohen [10:37] Fine. But I want it noted that I was not informed about the tool shed and volunteers were inconvenienced. Sarah Brennan [10:38] Noted Rachel. Let's move forward.

Document Health Check

DHC

Flags every rule break, inconsistency, and typo. Nothing gets through unnoticed.

See the demo ›

Check it: DHC

A generic AI check will catch typos, but it won't catch a broken cross-reference or a vague step.

Runs against your rules: structure, clarity, consistency, instruction quality
Returns a punch list, one pass, no misses

Below is a fictional user guide with deliberate errors: some obvious, most not.

The document Fictional example: errors deliberate

AquaTrack User Guide: V2 Introduction This guide describes how to use AquaTrack to monitor and manage your water usage data. AquaTrack V2 includes several improvements to the dashboard and reporting features. This document is intended for facility managers and site administrators. For LDAP configuration, see the Configuration Guide. Get Started Before you begin, ensure that your account has been activated by your system administrator. Log In 1. Open your browser and navigate to the AquaTrack portal. 2. Enter your username and password. 3. Click enter. Navigating The Dashboard The dashboard is divided into three sections: Overview, Reports, and Settings. Each section can be Accessed from the left-hand navigation panel. Configure Site Site configuration should be completed before data collection is started. Add a Location 1. Click the New Location button. 2. Open the dropdown. Select your preferred region and then click YES. 3. Your location will be saved automatically. Set Thresholds Threshold values are used by the system to trigger various alerts. Alerts are sent to the email address registered to your account.. The following thresholds can be configured: - Daily limit: The maximum daily usage in litres. - weekly alert: A warning sent when usage reaches 80% of the daily limit. - Monthly Report: A summary sent at the end of each billing period. Generating Reports Reports can be Generated from the Reports section of the dashboard. Select an appropriate date range before running a report. Export Data Data is exported in CSV format. The file will be downloaded to your default downloads folder when the export button is clicked. Troubleshoot If your report fails to generate, check that your date range does not exceed 12 months. If the problem persists, contact your administrator. AquaTrack User Guide: V1

Fidelity Checker

FDC

Traces every claim back to source and flags what can't be verified.

See the demo ›

Check it: FDC

A generic AI check reads for tone. It doesn't check whether the draft still says what the source said.

Traces every claim in a draft back to its source, sentence by sentence
Flags what drifts, overstates, invents, or goes missing before release

Below are a source article and a draft. The draft looks close, but it isn't.

The documents Fictional example: errors deliberate

The Rise of Electric Vehicles: A Market Overview Global Sales Growth Electric vehicle sales reached 14 million units globally in 2023, representing a 35% increase over the previous year. China accounted for 60% of all electric vehicle sales worldwide, with Europe in second place at 25% and North America at 11%. The average price of a new electric vehicle in the United States fell to $53,000 in 2023, down from $65,000 in 2021. Analysts attribute this decline primarily to increased competition among manufacturers and falling battery costs. Battery Technology Lithium-ion batteries remain the dominant technology in electric vehicles, powering approximately 95% of all models currently on sale. The average battery pack cost fell to $139 per kilowatt-hour in 2023, a reduction of 14% compared to the previous year. Solid-state batteries are widely regarded as the next significant advance in electric vehicle technology. They offer higher energy density, faster charging times, and improved safety compared to lithium-ion alternatives. Toyota has announced plans to begin limited production of solid-state battery vehicles by 2027. Charging Infrastructure The number of public charging points worldwide exceeded 2.7 million in 2023. The United States had approximately 168,000 public charging points at the end of 2023, a figure that government targets require to reach 500,000 by 2030. Fast chargers, defined as units capable of delivering 50 kilowatts or more, accounted for 30% of all public charging points globally. The average fast charge session adds approximately 100 miles of range in 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the vehicle and charger type. Consumer Concerns Range anxiety remains the most commonly cited barrier to electric vehicle adoption. In a 2023 survey of 8,000 consumers across ten countries, 58% of respondents who had not purchased an electric vehicle listed range anxiety as a significant concern. The same survey found that 41% of non-owners cited purchase price as a barrier, while 29% expressed concern about the availability of home charging. Consumers in urban apartments without dedicated parking were identified as the group least likely to consider an electric vehicle purchase in the near term. Environmental Impact Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions at the point of use. However, the total lifecycle carbon footprint depends heavily on the electricity source used for charging. In countries with coal-heavy electricity grids, the lifecycle emissions of an electric vehicle can approach those of an efficient petrol vehicle. A 2023 study found that, on average across European electricity grids, an electric vehicle produces 50% fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than an equivalent petrol vehicle. This figure is expected to improve as electricity grids incorporate more renewable energy.

Electric Vehicles: The Road Ahead Global Sales Growth Electric vehicle sales reached 14 million units globally in 2023, representing a 35% increase over the previous year. China dominated the market, accounting for more than half of all electric vehicle sales worldwide. Europe came in second place and North America third. The average price of a new electric vehicle in the United States fell to $51,000 in 2023, down from $65,000 in 2021. Analysts attribute this decline primarily to increased competition among manufacturers and falling battery costs. Battery Technology Lithium-ion batteries remain the dominant technology in electric vehicles. The average battery pack cost fell to $139 per kilowatt-hour in 2023, a reduction of 14% compared to the previous year. Solid-state batteries are widely regarded as the next significant advance in electric vehicle technology. They offer higher energy density and faster charging times compared to lithium-ion alternatives. Toyota has announced plans to begin mass production of solid-state battery vehicles by 2027. Hydrogen fuel cell technology is also emerging as a serious alternative to battery-electric powertrains, with several major manufacturers investing heavily in development programmes targeting commercial vehicles and long-haul transport. Charging Infrastructure The number of public charging points worldwide exceeded 2.7 million in 2023. The United States had approximately 168,000 public charging points at the end of 2023, and government targets require this to reach 500,000 by 2030. Fast chargers accounted for the majority of all public charging points globally. The average fast charge session adds approximately 100 miles of range in 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the vehicle and charger type. Consumer Concerns Range anxiety remains the most commonly cited barrier to electric vehicle adoption. In a 2023 survey of 10,000 consumers across twelve countries, 58% of respondents who had not purchased an electric vehicle listed range anxiety as a significant concern. The same survey found that 41% of non-owners cited purchase price as a barrier, while 29% expressed concern about the availability of home charging. Young urban professionals were identified as the group least likely to consider an electric vehicle purchase in the near term. Environmental Impact Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions at the point of use. The total lifecycle carbon footprint depends on the electricity source used for charging. In countries with coal-heavy electricity grids, the lifecycle emissions of an electric vehicle can be significantly lower than those of a petrol vehicle. A 2023 study found that, on average across European electricity grids, an electric vehicle produces 50% fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than an equivalent petrol vehicle. This figure is expected to improve further as more consumers switch from petrol to electric.

RedCheck

RDC

Turns reviewer comments into one structured, attributed punch list.

See the demo ›

Check it: RDC

Reviewer comments come back scattered across emails, tracked changes, and sticky notes. Nothing tells you what's actually been fixed.

Reads annotations from one or more marked-up documents
Attributes every comment to its reviewer, turns it into one action
Verifies each correction and gives it a verdict. Runs in cycles until everything is fixed

Below is a document annotated by two reviewers, Sam and Susan: 13 comments between them, corrections made, one round done.

The annotated document Fictional example: errors deliberate

Electric Vehicles: Market Overview (DRAFT V1.2) GLOBAL SALES GROWTH [Comment 1, Sam: Heading is all caps: should be sentence case] Electric vehicle sales reached 14 million units globally in 2023, representing a 35% increase over the previous year. China dominated the market, accounting for more than half of all electric vehicle sales worldwide. [Comment 2, Susan: "more than half" is imprecise: source says 60%] The average price of a new electric vehicle in the United States fell to $51,000 in 2023, down from $65,000 in 2021. [Comment 3, Susan: figure wrong: source says $53,000 not $51,000] Analysts attribute this decline primarily to increased competition among manufacturers and falling battery costs. BATTERY TECHNOLOGY [Comment 4, Sam: Heading is all caps: same issue as above] Lithium-ion batteries remain the dominant technology in electric vehicles. The average battery pack cost fell to $139 per kilowatt-hour in 2023, a reduction of 14% compared to the previous year. Solid-state batteries are widely regarded as the next significant advance in electric vehicle technology. They offer higher energy density and faster charging times compared to lithium-ion alternatives. Toyota has announced plans to begin mass production of solid-state battery vehicles by 2027. [Comment 5, Susan: "mass production" is incorrect: source says "limited production"] Hydrogen fuel cell technology is also emerging as a serious alternative to battery-electric powertrains. [Comment 6, Sam: invented content: not in source, delete] CHARGING INFRASTRUCTURE [Comment 7, Sam: Heading is all caps] The number of public charging points worldwide exceeded 2.7 million in 2023. The United States had approximately 168,000 public charging points at the end of 2023, and government targets require this to reach 500,000 by 2030. Fast chargers accounted for the majority of all public charging points globally. [Comment 8, Susan: "majority" is wrong: source says 30%, which is not a majority] The average fast charge session adds approximately 100 miles of range in 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the vehicle and charger type. CONSUMER CONCERNS [Comment 9, Sam: Heading is all caps] Range anxiety remains the most commonly cited barrier to electric vehicle adoption. In a 2023 survey of 10,000 consumers across twelve countries, 58% of respondents listed range anxiety as a significant concern. [Comment 10, Susan: survey size and country count wrong: source says 8,000 consumers, ten countries] The same survey found that 41% of non-owners cited purchase price as a barrier, while 29% expressed concern about the availability of home charging. Young urban professionals were identified as the group least likely to consider an electric vehicle purchase. [Comment 11, Susan: "Young urban professionals" is not in source: source says "Consumers in urban apartments without dedicated parking"] ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT [Comment 12, Sam: Heading is all caps] Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions at the point of use. The total lifecycle carbon footprint depends on the electricity source used for charging. In countries with coal-heavy electricity grids, the lifecycle emissions of an electric vehicle can be significantly lower than those of a petrol vehicle. [Comment 13, Susan: meaning changed: source says emissions "can approach" those of a petrol vehicle, not "significantly lower"] A 2023 study found that, on average across European electricity grids, an electric vehicle produces 50% fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than an equivalent petrol vehicle.

Electric Vehicles: Market Overview (DRAFT V1.3) Global sales growth Electric vehicle sales reached 14 million units globally in 2023, representing a 35% increase over the previous year. China dominated the market, accounting for more than half of all electric vehicle sales worldwide. The average price of a new electric vehicle in the United States fell to $53,000 in 2023, down from $65,000 in 2021. Analysts attribute this decline primarily to increased competition among manufacturers and falling battery costs. Battery technology Lithium-ion batteries remain the dominant technology in electric vehicles. The average battery pack cost fell to $139 per kilowatt-hour in 2023, a reduction of 14% compared to the previous year. Solid-state batteries are widely regarded as the next significant advance in electric vehicle technology. They offer higher energy density and faster charging times compared to lithium-ion alternatives. Toyota has announced plans to begin limited production of solid-state battery vehicles by 2027. Charging infrastructure The number of public charging points worldwide exceeded 2.7 million in 2023. The United States had approximately 168,000 public charging points at the end of 2023, and government targets require this to reach 500,000 by 2030. Fast chargers accounted for 30% of all public charging points globally. The average fast charge session adds approximately 100 miles of range in 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the vehicle and charger type. Consumer concerns Range anxiety remains the most commonly cited barrier to electric vehicle adoption. In a 2023 survey of 8,000 consumers across ten countries, 58% of respondents listed range anxiety as a significant concern. The same survey found that 41% of non-owners cited purchase price as a barrier, while 29% expressed concern about the availability of home charging. Young urban professionals were identified as the group least likely to consider an electric vehicle purchase. Environmental impact Electric vehicles produce zero direct emissions at the point of use. The total lifecycle carbon footprint depends on the electricity source used for charging. In countries with coal-heavy electricity grids, the lifecycle emissions of an electric vehicle can be significantly lower than those of a petrol vehicle. A 2023 study found that, on average across European electricity grids, an electric vehicle produces 50% fewer lifecycle carbon emissions than an equivalent petrol vehicle.

RedCheck (RDC) Punch List

Stage 1

DocumentElectric Vehicles: Market Overview

ReviewersSam, Susan

Date2026-06-15

–

Fixed

–

Not fixed

Total

Section A: Actionable comments13 items

#	Reviewer	Section	Annotation (verbatim)	Action required
1	Sam	Global Sales Growth	Heading is all caps: should be sentence case	Change heading to sentence case: "Global sales growth"
2	Susan	Global Sales Growth	"more than half" is imprecise: source says 60%	Replace "more than half" with "60%"
3	Susan	Global Sales Growth	figure wrong: source says $53,000 not $51,000	Correct "$51,000" to "$53,000"
4	Sam	Battery Technology	Heading is all caps: same issue as above	Change heading to sentence case: "Battery technology"
5	Susan	Battery Technology	"mass production" is incorrect: source says "limited production"	Replace "mass production" with "limited production"
6	Sam	Battery Technology	invented content: not in source, delete	Delete the sentence about hydrogen fuel cell technology
7	Sam	Charging Infrastructure	Heading is all caps	Change heading to sentence case: "Charging infrastructure"
8	Susan	Charging Infrastructure	"majority" is wrong: source says 30%, which is not a majority	Replace "majority" with "30%"
9	Sam	Consumer Concerns	Heading is all caps	Change heading to sentence case: "Consumer concerns"
10	Susan	Consumer Concerns	survey size and country count wrong: source says 8,000 consumers, ten countries	Correct "10,000 consumers across twelve countries" to "8,000 consumers across ten countries"
11	Susan	Consumer Concerns	"Young urban professionals" is not in source: source says "Consumers in urban apartments without dedicated parking"	Replace "Young urban professionals" with "Consumers in urban apartments without dedicated parking"
12	Sam	Environmental Impact	Heading is all caps	Change heading to sentence case: "Environmental impact"
13	Susan	Environmental Impact	meaning changed: source says emissions "can approach" those of a petrol vehicle, not "significantly lower"	Replace "significantly lower than those of a petrol vehicle" with "can approach those of a petrol vehicle"

13 actionable comments extracted. Work through each item. When corrections are made, run Stage 2 to verify.

Release Packager

RLP

Assembles approved copy into release-ready output, section by section.

See the demo ›

Distribute it: RLP

Takes approved tracker rows and assembles the release output: section updates, datasheet entries, and release notes, ready to place into documents.

Five approved tracker entries from a fictitious visitor management release, ready for packaging.

Approved tracker entries: Vantage VM v3.1 Fictitious example

Feature	Ticket	Type	Status
Visitor pre-registration	VM-1042	New feature	Approved
Configurable badge expiry warning	VM-1058	Enhancement	Approved
Recurring visit schedules	VM-1063	New feature	Approved
Bulk visitor export: CSV	VM-1071	Enhancement	Approved
Check-out time not recorded on manual sign-out	VM-1089	Fix	Approved

Vantage VM v3.1: Release Notes

ReleaseVantage VM

Version3.1

Date–

Vantage VM

Version 3.1

June 2026

New features

Visitor pre-registration

Hosts can now register visitors in advance and generate a QR code for check-in on arrival. Reception staff scan the code to complete check-in without manual data entry. Requires visitor email address. QR code validity period is configurable (default: 24 hours). (VM-1042)

Recurring visit schedules

Hosts can create recurring visit schedules for regular visitors: daily, weekly, or monthly. Pre-registration records are generated automatically for each occurrence. Managed from the visitor profile page. (VM-1063)

Enhancements

Configurable badge expiry warning

The badge expiry warning threshold on the reception dashboard is now configurable in Site Settings. Default: 15 minutes. Previously fixed at 10 minutes. (VM-1058)

Bulk visitor export

Visitor log records can now be exported to CSV from the web client. The export respects active filters and supports up to 5,000 records. Includes visitor name, host, check-in and check-out times, badge number, and purpose of visit. (VM-1071)

Fixes

Fixed an issue where the check-out time was not recorded in the visitor log when reception staff used the manual Sign out button. Affected all clients from v2.8. (VM-1089)

Session complete

Release Packager complete: Vantage VM v3.1

5 approved tracker entries assembled into release notes: 2 new features, 2 enhancements, and 1 fix.

On your own approved entries, this run also delivers section updates and datasheet entries alongside the release notes.

Curious how this would work with your own documents? Want to know more?

Social Media Creator

SMC

Turns one brief into on-brand posts for up to five platforms.

See the demo ›

Distribute it: SMC

You know what you want to say. Every platform wants it in a different shape.

Writes from your Org Profile, so every post already matches your tone and style
Checks against what you've already posted, so nothing repeats

Here's a fictitious brief. Set your brand colours and see Social Media Creator draft the post.

The brief Fictional example

TopicAnnouncing our new AI-powered onboarding workflow

AudienceB2B SaaS operators and onboarding leads

ToneConfident, concise, data-led

PlatformLinkedIn

CTALink in comments

Primary colour

Secondary colour

ClassifyMe

CLM

Classifies bank and card transactions into a reconciled income and expenditure report.

See the demo ›

Utilities: ClassifyMe

The problem

Consolidating data from separate sources is messy no matter how careful you are. Every source has its own format and its own quirks, and getting them lined up accurately, period after period, is a job in itself.

The workaround

I use Power Query, and I'm good at it. But every structural change on the source side, a column moved, a file renamed, or new location means another tweak to the query; another half-hour spent on checking and testing the code. Catering for various changes in working practices or source data requires real engineering capabilities, not spreadsheet skill. And not to put too fine a point on it, they're skills and experience I don't have.

How I built it

That's exactly the gap the LLM fills. I know what the data means and what I need to see in it. Claude runs on an LLM that can pull data from different sources and build something that doesn't break the same way twice. I send Claude my disparate files monthly and I get this report.

What matters, at a glance

The report is styled so totals and variances stand out immediately, instead of being buried in rows I'd have to check line by line.

A working pipeline I couldn't have built without Anthropic's LLM, that runs the same way every period

Full report: Dave's Printing Services Fictitious example

Curious how this would work with your own data files? Want to know more?

Profiler

ORG

Captures your tone, writing standards and brand guide once, so every tool applies them automatically.

See the demo ›

Utilities: Profiler

The problem

Teams that write need to sound like each other and use the same writing style and vocabulary. Templates can help frame the look and feel of a document, but framing the actual content is difficult. The problem compounds as team members change and the shared history of how the writing style was conceived fades. Add to that multiple hands touching a document, and it isn't long before coherence is lost, requiring more rework.

The workaround

Writing guides, training sessions, and peer reviews all have their place, but the results are not outstanding. LLMs help, but only up to a point. I can set the guidelines for a document and a colleague can paste in the same prompt, but by the time it's time to edit, those guidelines are usually lost in a chat somewhere. They get harder to find as time passes.

How I built it

That's why Profiler exists. It's a single profile that stores the writing patterns, specific vocabulary, and grammatical dos and don'ts you upload. Whoever uses that profile to edit documents or create new ones applies the same patterns and guidelines automatically. It also stores your brand colours, so every output reflects you.

What matters, at a glance

Set up once, applied everywhere. Users never have to repeat the patterns and guides whenever they use a tool. The profile is available to every tool without extra setup, so it's built-in consistency no matter what you're creating, reviewing, or editing.

A one-time setup that every tool uses, so tone and brand rules never have to be re-explained.

Learning your patterns Fictitious example

Document you upload

Integration-setup-guide.docx

Configure the connector before you enable sync.

Enable sync1

Enable sync once configuration finishes.2 Data updates every fifteen minutes. No manual refresh is required.3

Troubleshooting1

Check your connection first if sync stops. Restart the integration if the issue continues.

Learned
once

Org Profile

One file in your Drive. Every tool fetches it by Org ID before it runs.

Tone: direct, instructional, present tense

Vocabulary: "enable," "configure," never "turn on," "set up"

1Lone subheadings: heading stands alone, never folded into the sentence below

2Section purpose: opening line states the action the section enables

3No filler language: no "simply," "just," "easily" or similar

Sentence structure: one idea per sentence, never joined with a comma and an "-ing" word

Brand colours:

Curious how this would work with your own writing standards? Want to know more?

FindMe

FME

Search, rename or move files as singles or in bulk; plus a safety bucket before anything's deleted.

See the demo ›

Utilities: FindMe

The problem

It's not about being organized. You can start that way. But years pass, files pile up across folders, naming drifts, and even a tidy system slowly stops being one. Going back to find something, or check whether you already have it somewhere else, gets harder every year, not easier.

The workaround

I patched it together with a combination of different utilities. It worked, but it wasn't slick. I was always hunting for "the" tool that would actually sort me out, never quite finding one that did the whole job.

How I built it

That's the gap the LLM fills. I could learn PowerShell, or local listener handling, or hash-based duplicate detection. But knowing enough to get by isn't the same as knowing enough to build something robust, that handles edge cases, that doesn't quietly break. I don't have that level, and I don't need to. The LLM does. I supplied what no AI can: which files actually matter to me, what counts as a duplicate worth flagging, and which folder a category belongs in.

What matters, at a glance

The LLM also built the report to work the way I actually look at things: colour-coded flags, panels grouped by what needs attention, so I see what matters before I've read a single filename.

A tool I couldn't have built without Anthropic's LLM, that I now own and run myself

Full report: Client Drive Fictitious example

Try it below: search, rename or move files

Curious how this would work with your own Drive? Want to know more?

SafeShare

SHR

Shares a working view of your data without exposing the source file behind it.

See the demo ›

Utilities: SafeShare

The problem

Giving sharees viewer access to a live Power BI report means paying for premium per-seat licensing, and the costs can mount up.

The workaround

I lived with it for years because I didn't see another way for others to view the data without exposing it to the internet or sharing the source file. Neither was a safe option, and my internet searches for alternatives yielded nothing.

How I built it

I asked Claude for a way to share the finished report without the Power BI Service licensing at all. It gave me a scheduled, one-way file sync inside my own Drive: robocopy copies the finished file from a source folder into a separate folder that the sharee has Viewer-only access to. If they change anything on their end, the next sync overwrites it with the source version.

What matters, at a glance

Sharees only ever have Viewer access to a separate folder in your Drive. They never get access to your source folder, and anything they do to their own copy doesn't last past the next sync.

The LLM gave me the concept and the code to deliver a good solution that's effective and safe.

How SafeShare works

My Google Drive

Source folder

Source file

One-way
scheduled copy

Sharee folder

Copy file

Viewer
access

Sharee's PC

Opens the file in the Sharee folder

Curious how this would work with your own reports? Want to know more?

In short

Speed and trust. Not one or the other.

Every tool thinks with you and for you, but never instead of you. It weighs up the options and flags what needs your judgment. You decide what's best.

Questions

Get in touch.

Not sure which tool fits your situation? Tell me what you're working on.

Send a message WhatsApp me

Stuck in a revision loop? There's a tool to get you out.

Open a category to see its tools.

Write it.

GrantWriter

BriefWriter

Feature Entry

You Said Yes

ClearStory

Check it.

Document Health Check

Fidelity Checker

RedCheck

Distribute it.

Release Packager

Social Media Creator

Utilities.

ClassifyMe

Profiler

FindMe

SafeShare

Speed and trust. Not one or the other.

Get in touch.