Anyone can open a chat window. The work I do is deciding what data moves, where it goes, and what happens to it on the way. Six systems below, each running in production today, each with the architecture that makes it run.
From one tool that turns client intake into a finished marketing plan.
After AI reporting and health scoring gave advisors the data before every renewal.
Per person, recurring, with no manual upkeep to keep it running.
At 60%+ monthly active usage, more than double the typical B2B rate.
The Problem
A 2025 MIT study on enterprise AI adoption found that 95% of companies investing in generative AI saw no return. The technology wasn't the problem. Researchers traced the failure to how the projects got built. Teams built their own tools instead of buying proven ones, then pointed them at departments like marketing and sales instead of the back-office workflows where AI reliably takes cost out.
That failure has a shape, and it shows up the same way every time. Someone decides the company should be using AI, then goes looking for somewhere to put it. The tool arrives before the problem does.
Every system on this page started from the opposite end. Find the number that's stuck, then build the smallest system that moves it.
Source: MIT Project NANDA, "The GenAI Divide: State of AI in Business 2025."
My Approach
I don't open a tool until I know what's broken. A project that starts with "let's use AI for this" already has it backward. Start with the constraint. AI is just the fastest way to remove it.
The bar for shipping is whether the team notices if it disappears tomorrow. If a system isn't opened every day, it isn't finished.
Most "AI tools" are a chat window bolted onto a prompt. I build agents that act inside production systems, with enough context to make a decision without someone reviewing every output.
Every system here was built against one number. If that number didn't move, the project isn't done, no matter how good the demo looked.
A good coaching call used to die in someone's memory. The advisor knew what happened, nobody else did, and the client's win never made it anywhere it could be used. I built the system that reads every call and writes the result into the four places that need it, without anyone typing a note.
The strategy session was the bottleneck. Clients waited days for a plan I could have walked them through in an hour. So I built the agent that runs the same diagnostic I would, stage by stage, and hands back a finished One-Page Marketing Plan while the client is still at their desk.
I run my whole operation out of a single vault. Obsidian holds the knowledge, Claude Code does the reasoning against it, and Telegram is how I talk to the thing from my phone. It has enough context to take action without being walked through every step, and it stays simple enough that asking it a question feels like asking a person.
Coaching only moves a business if the work continues after the call. Clients would hit a wall on a Tuesday and sit on it until the next session. So instead of one general assistant, I built a library of narrow tools, each trained on one piece of the marketing process, each doing a job a client would otherwise wait on me for.
Generic AI copy fails for one reason. It doesn't know the business. Lean Intelligence reads each client's foundational documents first, the offer, the ICP, the messaging, the tone of voice, so the model is grounded in that client before it writes a word. I owned this one end to end, from the interface through the roadmap.
One prompt asked to do a whole marketing strategy gives you shallow work in four directions. So I split it into four agents, each with one job, running in sequence. The important part is underneath: every stage writes what it learned into a shared context, so the SEO agent knows what the messaging agent decided.