Manual work
is slowing you down.

An AI automation audit is a structured review of how your team handles repetitive work, with the goal of identifying which tasks are good candidates for automation and which aren't. We map your existing manual workflows, look at where time and attention are leaking, and produce a written deliverable that ranks automation opportunities by expected return and implementation difficulty. The audit is methodology-driven, not tool-driven — we recommend specific tools (n8n, Zapier, scripts, LLM-based agents) only after we understand the workflow. The output is something you can act on whether you implement it yourself or hire someone else. It's deliberately scoped to be quick to consume: a small number of well-justified recommendations, not a 60-page report nobody reads.

From form submission to delivery, expect about five business days. The flow looks like this: you submit a short intake form describing your current workflows and bottlenecks, we review what you sent and follow up with a 15-minute clarification call (no sales pitch — just questions about how the work actually happens today), and then we produce the written audit. Most of the elapsed time is on our side analyzing what you shared. Your time investment is roughly 30 to 45 minutes total: 5 minutes on the form, 15 on the call, and the rest reading and discussing the deliverable. If you have a hard deadline (e.g. budget cycle, product launch), tell us in the intake form and we can usually compress the timeline.

You receive a written audit document — typically 4 to 8 pages — organized around three sections. The first section is a workflow inventory: each manual process you described, summarized in our words to confirm we understood it. The second section is the prioritized recommendations: which workflows are worth automating first, why (in plain language), what the recommended approach would be, and what the realistic effort and cost look like. The third section flags anti-patterns: things you might be tempted to automate that you actually shouldn't, and why. We avoid generic templates. Every audit is written by hand for the specific situation you described, which is why we limit how many we take per month. You also get a follow-up call to walk through the document and answer questions.

The audit is specifically designed for non-technical readers. The target reader is an operations lead, founder, or team manager — someone who understands the work but does not write code. We avoid jargon where we can and define it where we cannot. Recommendations are written so a non-technical reader can evaluate the trade-offs and make a decision, then hand the document to a developer or implementation partner if they choose to proceed. If a recommendation requires technical judgment we can't reasonably ask you to make, we say so explicitly and recommend what to ask a developer. The follow-up call is also a good place to ask "what does this mean in practice?" — that is a common and welcome question, not a sign you are out of your depth.

The audit itself is free. There is no payment, no credit card, and no obligation to engage further. We can offer it free because the audit is genuinely useful on its own — many teams take the recommendations and implement them in-house with their existing developers — and because it lets us identify the small number of engagements where we are genuinely a good fit for paid implementation work. If after the audit you decide you'd like help implementing the recommendations, we can quote that as a separate engagement. There is no hidden upsell embedded in the deliverable: the recommendations stand on their own and reference specific tools (often free or low-cost) you can adopt without us. If we're not the right partner for implementation, we'll say so.

The audit is built for small-to-mid-sized teams whose operations have grown faster than their tooling. Concretely: businesses with established, recurring workflows (not one-off projects), teams losing meaningful time to repetitive manual work, and decision-makers who want clarity on what to automate before committing budget. We are explicitly not a fit for solo hobbyists, very early stage teams without stable workflows yet, or organizations looking for a single magic AI tool to replace human judgment. The Is This A Fit section above goes into more detail. If you are unsure whether you fit, the intake form is the right way to find out — we will tell you directly if we think you should not engage, rather than producing a generic deliverable.

We are tool-agnostic in principle but practical in recommendations. The toolkit we lean on most often: n8n for workflow orchestration (open-source, self-hostable, generally cheaper than commercial alternatives at scale), Supabase for data persistence, and current-generation LLMs from OpenAI, Anthropic, and the open-weights ecosystem. For lighter-weight automations we frequently recommend Zapier or Make, especially if you already have an account. We pick tools based on your team size, technical comfort, budget, and risk profile. We avoid recommending tools just because they are trendy. If your team already standardizes on a specific stack, we will work within it where reasonable rather than insisting on ours. The audit will name the specific tool we recommend for each automation opportunity, with one-line reasoning.

After delivery and the follow-up call, the relationship is whatever you want it to be. Many teams take the document and implement the recommendations themselves with internal developers — that is a fine and expected outcome. Some teams ask us to scope a paid engagement to implement specific automations from the audit; if so, we quote that separately and clearly, with a fixed price or capped time-and-materials structure. Some teams come back months later having done the work and want a follow-up review. There is no automatic check-in or retention process. You will not get marketing emails. If you have a question about the audit a week or a month later, you can email us and we will respond — that is included in the original engagement at no additional cost.