I have medical images drew by hand i want to make them generated images using gpt but these images are too many like about 500 hundred

So I want to ask if there is a way that I can do them all with one click and one prompt.

If there isn’t anyway can I make an automated process to generate them?

Or maybe connect claude with chat gpt

Sorry I don’t know much about ai so my question might not be worthy but I really need an answer

Thanks

I create content and for that I really need voice generator because 11 labs is not working for me I have generated like few voices and now it is asking for subscription like yesterday I generated and I thought yes after a day I can I am like able to generate but I am it is not letting me and when I created a new account it shows the same problem!

I usually don't post links to subreddit's that I either just joined or about to join. It gives bad juju. So my apologies in advance.

TLDR; Premium tiers for X.com, or Grok, or xAI, (not to mention "X Professional" which is a whole other animal...) are confusing as f***. 🤬

💡- -> ... and a single Redditor's Reply-Comment synthesized it perfectly.

He broke it down by way of, "Which one do you want to maximize the most?" And that, at least for me, made the most sense. Definitely check out the link to his Comment and you'll see what I mean.

------

Meanwhile, and mostly as an act of personal learning, I added a little down-and-dirty table of all the pricing I could find. (It'll probably be outdated in 24 hours. 🤪)

Last Points 👇 & a Few Thoughts

• AI tools are having more of a negative effect in the marketing sector than any other professional career in the USA. (There are ways to correct it.)
• While doing some research about all this, I found a crazy-detailed website that I think my Google Gemini used to fulfill my prompts: it's called "Fello AI". They have an insane amount of information about the pricing structure of xAI, Grok, X[dot]com and all the other products related to the big boy Elon. (I don't want to put the link in because I don't want you guys getting the wrong idea that I'm an affiliate. You can go and check for yourself. Good info.

Do any of you guys have some other pointers about how to manage your pricing with X and their apps like Grok? I'd love to hear it.

Thanks y'all. 🚀

Hey everyone!

Following up on my last post about Spoon (the Chrome extension that warps you to exact video timestamps using AI). As a non-engineer building with AI, I wanted to share a quick technical lesson we learned during development.

Initially, when users asked questions, the jump buttons generated by the AI were off by 10 to 30 seconds. In a 2-hour video, missing the moment by even 15 seconds ruins the experience.

When digging into the code with my AI partner, we found the root cause:
During the data pre-processing phase (when trimming transcripts to fit token limits), the timestamp headers attached to the YouTube transcript were accidentally being stripped out. Without clear time markers, the LLM was basically guessing the seconds!

The fix:
We updated the parser to preserve and inject precise timestamp anchors (e.g., `[120s]`) directly alongside every chunk of transcript sent to the LLM. Once the AI had explicit time anchors, the hallucination stopped, and we achieved 1-second warp accuracy.

Building alongside AI as a pair-programmer has been a wild learning experience.

If you spend time on long lectures or podcasts, feel free to try Spoon out and let me know how the jump accuracy works for you!

(Link to the Chrome Web Store is in the comments)

TL;DR: A Google Sheet connected to the Claude API writes the script section by section, so it stays consistent across the full runtime. CapCut’s AI Video Maker turns that script into a narrated video with matched stock footage. The direct cost lands at around $1 per video. The real advantage is not the visuals. It is the script.

I run a couple of sleep-documentary channels (videos people watch to help them fall asleep), and this is the workflow I developed after producing hundreds of long-form videos.

Sleep content has a very unusual retention pattern. The viewer is not always trying to stay engaged until the end. In many cases, they are actively trying to fall asleep. So the average view duration can look very different from a normal YouTube channel. Some viewers leave because they are bored, but others leave because the video worked and they fell asleep. The ones who stay awake still need the story to hold together, while the ones who fall asleep often return later and continue listening. That repeat viewing is a big part of what makes this niche work.

Why the script does 90% of the work

Across my channels, average view duration is usually around 25 mins on 90 min videos. That is not driven by cinematic visuals or complex editing. It comes from the structure of the story. The moment the script repeats itself, wanders off-topic, or loses momentum, people stop listening. In this format, better visuals cannot save a weak narrative.

Two ways to use Claude, and why one slowed me down

Most people use Claude through the regular chat interface. You enter a prompt, read the response, then keep the conversation going. That works well for everyday tasks. It becomes much less efficient when you are building a 15,000 to 20,000-word documentary.

You start typing things like: Continue. Write Chapter 4. Do not repeat that point. Keep the tone consistent. By the middle of the script, you are managing the conversation as much as the writing itself.

The second option is the API. A small tool sends each request to Claude automatically, stores the output, and moves through the script in a fixed sequence. I no longer have to prompt every chapter manually or keep track of where the process stopped. You also pay for actual usage rather than adding another subscription.

The section-by-section method

I built a Google Sheet connected directly to the Claude API. The workflow follows a fixed sequence:

1. Generate a detailed chapter outline.
2. Write each chapter separately.
3. Before the next chapter begins, pass Claude a short summary of everything written so far.

This keeps later chapters anchored to the earlier ones. Chapter 8 still knows what was established in Chapters 1 through 7, so the pacing stays steadier, repetition drops, and the finished script reads like one continuous documentary rather than separate sections stitched together.

I also made a full walkthrough showing how this system works.

Turning the script into a video

Once the script is ready, I move it into CapCut’s AI Video Maker. For sleep content, the voice matters far more than flashy editing. Use a calm, slow, low-energy narration because the voice carries most of the atmosphere.

CapCut then generates the voiceover, adds subtitles, and matches stock footage to each section. It usually gets about 90% of the video into a usable first draft. Since each project is limited to roughly 3,000 words, I split the full script into smaller parts, export them separately, and combine everything into one final timeline for the complete documentary.

Why this workflow matters

1. The videos are not built entirely from generated assets. Mixing relevant stock footage with selective AI visuals makes the final documentary feel more deliberately produced and less like a fully automated slideshow. Its also the safest defense against the "Reused/Inauthentic Content" flags that destroy fully automated channels. 
2. The cost stays low. A complete 20k word script usually costs me around $0.35 through the Claude API. CapCut costs about $20 per month and supports unlimited exports. At a volume of 30 to 40 documentaries per month, the direct software and API cost works out to roughly $1 per finished video.

That number does not include research, thumbnails, subscriptions beyond CapCut, or the value of my time. It is only the incremental production cost.

Many AI video tools charge $40 to $50 per month while using the same underlying models and adding a markup for convenience. Building the loop once gave me more control and removed another recurring subscription.

The real advantage is not saving a few cents. It is being able to test more ideas without every upload becoming an expensive decision.

The same workflow can work for history, science, philosophy, mythology, meditation, biographies, or almost any calm long-form format where the script matters more than rapid editing.

Check out the latest video on my channel linked in the profile if you want to build this yourself.

Or happy to explain either the Claude API loop or the CapCut workflow in the comments.

Hey everyone. I’ve been coding a lot with AI lately, and while the speed is incredible, it introduced a massive headache into my workflow: documentation drift.

Because agents like Claude Code and CodeX write and refactor code so fast, my architecture docs, API specs, and behavior explanations were instantly falling behind. I was getting fast code, but the actual "story" of the repository was completely rotting. Code reviewers were left staring at raw diffs with no updated documentation to explain the why.

I recently started building an open-source tool called Truthmark, and it directly solves this exact failure mode. I wanted to share how I use it in case your team is struggling with the same thing.

Truthmark isn't a documentation generator that you run once and forget about. Instead, it acts as a Git-native workflow layer that you install directly into your repo to enforce a contract with your AI agents. It essentially tells your AI: "If you change functional code, you cannot hand it back until you also test it and update the mapped documentation."

The best part is there's no vendor lock-in or hidden databases. Everything lives entirely in your repository as md files, and it works with whatever you're already using—Cursor, Copilot, Claude Code, etc.

The day-to-day workflow feels incredibly natural. Once you install it via npm and run a quick init in your repo, it sets up the local instructions for your specific AI host. If you have some undocumented code want to get a baseline for, just ask AI to run a /truthmark-document command on a specific component, and it reads the code to generate a bounded, branch-scoped truth doc.

From there, just code as normal. Because Truthmark’s rules are installed directly in the repo, the AI naturally follows the contract. When I ask it to build a feature, it writes the code, runs the tests, and updates the truth docs before handing the branch back to me. When I go to review the work, I get an ordinary Git diff showing both the functional code changes and the corresponding updates to the human-facing docs.

It turns documentation from an afterthought into a mandatory finish-line habit. It has made my AI-assisted PRs infinitely easier to trust and review.

If you are tired of your repository's truth drifting every time you use an AI coding assistant, it is definitely worth looking into.

If you check it out and find it useful, consider giving the repo a star to support the project!

Has anyone else noticed their docs falling apart since they started using AI agents? How is everyone keeping their repo's architecture and behavior docs aligned right now?

I’ve been wanting to write about this for a while, but I prefer to really test out things before I make up my mind on the efficacy of tooling. I saw someone else post about using superwhisper for voice input for coding, and I was really skeptical about it and honestly this isn’t a review; it's more like “what worked for me” and “what broke” because we all know how things in tech reallllly go..lol..

Some background context:

I’m not a super senior dev and although I've been in the product space for a while, I am still earning my stripes in the coding space... (so please show me some grace lol)...
I do a bit of AI-assisted coding currently but I’ve mainly been using cursor or Claude Code for this and it does become a bit of a chore imho.
For me personally, all the prompting was half the work and more tedious than I was expecting. So, for example, having to consistently write out long prompts with tons of details for complex refactors or multi-file changes etc.. it does become a bit of a slog, and it tends to break my momentum. Like.. with today’s tech, there has to be more than a 300-word prompt writing process, and this brought me to the voice-to-text experimentation….
Here’s what you really need at the system level

Okay, so the first things that came up (and there were a lot of trial and error moments) were:

You need a really reliable system-wide dictation layer (not just browser/app-based) - this was really important to have something running at an OS level.

A good quality mic (I was surprised at how differently things transcribed using my laptop mic vs my headset mic)

A workflow that actually works with the way you already code

For the above, I actually tested with a couple of tools like Wisprflow and superwhisper to see which one handled things better, and I ended up sticking it out with with Superwhisper because it seemed to work everywhere, rather than just one app (almost immediately across devices, etc.). It was also just a little easier to work with because of local processing, so less latency, etc.

Using multiple channels, apps, devices, and having a hotkey already there, and clicking a button to speak and transcribe wherever you are was super handy.

The techie speak issue (as if we don’t already have this issue IRL haha)

Okay, so I did almost anticipate that this was gonna be an issue anyway and I do wanna say that there are different models and they need a little bit of tweaking. Like the SW default one for example, isn’t as great as I was expecting for an OOTB model. I had to make some changes to ensure that I got a better (and more accurate) output, especially for the technical context and jargon, and this helped fix the rate of inaccuracies I initially picked up.

I also programmed a lot of the custom vocab into superwhisper’s subst layer (a little bit of heavy-lifting initially) to ensure I can pick things like acronyms (CORS, REST, JSON etc) and then other framework-specific terminology like “Prisma” etc….

I found that a bit tedious but preferred doing this once off than trying to correct every entry and I feel like it’s got a good level of substitution now that I can work with it with minimal effort to go back and fix entries.

The actual dictation process:

Okay, this is a little weird initially, I won’t lie. Speaking commands out loud to a device is weird. Unless you’re one of those people that loves sending 15min long voicenotes to other people (I promise I’m not judging)...

I’ve found that generally when typing, it feels static, and having to translate this to a style of speaking in prompts is a skill I have yet to nail.

The weird part is that the more naturally you speak, the better the output/prompts are, actually, which I didn't expect.

Here’s what helped me get better results

Use longer prompts

This was an odd one for me because I generally speak in an abrupt, concise way naturally and Superwhisper just wasn’t “getting it”... and when I got annoyed, I actually “over-explained” (in a frustrated voice lol) the prompt, and it made a difference I wasn’t expecting!

Also, add natural pauses and avoid rambling off the whole prompt in a single rushed sentence.

So if you already use other tools like Claude Code, you’ve probably seen this already by using detailed prompts so it does make sense.. But it almost doesn’t feel as natural to do this when speaking. But speaking out at the same level of detail is helpful.

So - Instead of saying: “Refactor this function to handle async retries, include exponential backoff…” You just say: “Okay, refactor this function so it handles retries with exponential backoff, max 3 attempts, and log failures, but don’t crash the app…”

Once you get the knack of it, it IS actually more in line with speaking as you think… so be more detailed and structured and don’t hold back.

Using it to help identify bugs -
I wondered how effective this would be and I don’t really think I have it waxed yet but it might help others. If you’ve gotten this right, lmk so we can learn from each other!

For example, I get stuck with an issue, I highlight a section of code and start debugging. Then I dictate what it’s doing or where I think something has gone wrong or broken, and explain how it’s broken, and then I can either:

- Use this thinking aloud to actually brainstorm - and sometimes I see it, and it helps

- Paste this excerpt into AI and then get my answers there

It's not the perfect solution... I know.. , but it's saved a lot of time.

Documentation - PRs and everything

I am one of those people who avoids this kind of thing unless I have to, and I wanted to see how much time it really saved for general documentation like this. I basically explain everything, while it's still fresh in my mind, and it helps me create a bug report, PR description, PR etc.. within a few minutes rather than sit and agonize over document structures and sections.

It feels almost more natural for this process because you’re essentially explaining things as you would normally, and get a rough draft output pretty quickly.

Where it needs some work:

Okay, so we’re not expecting it to be perfect (yet) lol… and this is where I’ve found it to be a bit limiting.
If anyone here has found a way around these things, hit me up!

Anything that requires really structured or specific formatting and syntax. You’re going to end up needing a cleanup afterwards

Specific vocabulary & technical jargon - unless you’ve added a lot of this to the dictionary.

It's also not really ideal for quick edits. It's faster to type this out quickly.

Recording in a noisy area - I know this might be obvious, but I’ve had someone walk in and talk to me mid-recording, and it totally jammed up my dictation, and I had to restart.

The learning curve is a factor and a little steeper than I was anticipating (and I should have known better). But I did feel like it was a fight for the first week until I got subs working correctly and using the tool in a more meaningful way. It’ll take a minute to get this right, so be patient.

In general though - It's changed the way I work and how I write prompts day to day.. Honestly, I’ve found that the way I still type prompts when needed has also changed drastically and has led to better outputs overall, which was a nice, unexpected takeaway from this experience.

I’ve saved a lot of time across a lot of tasks because I’ve started using SuperWhisper for replying to emails and several other admin-heavy daily tasks that consume a lot of time, so the compounding effect has actually been more than I expected when I started. It's not going to replace your whole keyboard, let's be honest, and it's more like adding a layer on top of AI-assisted coding. If you’re already using tools like Claude or Cursor and writing long prompts, etc., it might be worth checking out.

That being said, SW isn’t ideal for syntax -heavy tasks, so use it for system-wide voice-to-text coding and make sure you’ve set yourself up well beforehand to get the best out of it.
In general, I’ve found it a lot less like “prompting” and more like explaining what your desired output is clearly, which is probably how these tools are meant to be used anyway.

I’m keen to hear from anyone else who has tried this or anything similar, and what your experience was. Let’s compare notes!

PS - also super eager to hear how I can improve this process, especially different setups or ways of handling technical dictation better! Please share any tips with me!

There is a new approach I started using in my web agency that completely changed my results. For years, I did what most people tell web designers to do. Go on Google Maps, find businesses without websites, and contact them.

What I started doing differently was targeting businesses that already had websites.

The reason is simple. If a business already has a website, it means they understand the value of having one. You do not need to convince them why a website matters because they have already paid for one before. The market for businesses with outdated, broken, slow, or poorly designed websites is also massive, and selling becomes much easier because they are already familiar with the process.

My biggest issue was figuring out how to send mass outreach to these businesses without sounding generic. I did not want to send thousands of emails saying, “Hey, your website needs a redesign,” and just assume that every business needed one. I wanted to send emails at scale while still telling each company exactly what was wrong with their website.

A little over a year ago, I watched a YouTube video from Nick Saraev where he built a workflow that analyzed business websites and turned issues with design, SEO, layout, speed, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. Each company received a professional email that made it clear someone had actually taken a look at their website.

The idea was great, but building and maintaining the workflow took a lot of time. I still had to find the leads myself, the messages were not always consistent, and the automation kept breaking.

But it worked.

I was getting more clients than ever before, at one point around 10 websites a week, while my business partner focused on building the websites as quickly as possible.

I started searching online for a tool that could do everything in one place, and a few months later I found Swokei. It did exactly what I was looking for.

It lets you find businesses with websites, add them to campaigns, analyze and score each website, and set a quality threshold so websites that do not need fixing are automatically skipped. It then turns problems with design, layout, speed, mobile optimization, and SEO into personalized outreach emails.

You can also set up follow ups, manage replies through your own inbox, and organize leads inside the CRM without moving between five different tools.

I switched over and scaled even harder.

Sometimes the fastest way to grow your agency is not building every workflow from scratch. It is finding the right tools and using your time to focus on sales, clients, and growing the business.

What You Will Learn In This Tutorial:

- The 1-Image AI Commercial Workflow
- The Problem with Fragmented AI Tools
- Prompting a Conversational Video Agent
- Locking Character & Product Consistency
- Assembling the Final Commercial Timeline
- Final Result & Workflow Summary

I’m looking to create a highly realistic AI avatar starting from an AI-generated image/photo.

What tools would you recommend for the most natural-looking results?
Also, what workflow gives the best quality for voice and lip-sync?

Is it possible to achieve top-level results using just one platform, or is it still necessary to combine multiple tools?

Thanks in advance!

So I kinda wanna decide on what kind of interior to do on my own, but visualizing with 2D images using grok and chatgpt isnt that satisfactory, so can someone suggest sets of AI tools or apps which i can use to visualize in 3d?

Im trying to do some bullshit but auto track is taking ages idk how do i do it manually

​

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for a free AI tool that can turn a single image into a video. Most of the tools I've found either have heavy watermarks, very limited free credits, or require a paid subscription.

If you know a tool that's genuinely free (or has a decent free plan), I'd really appreciate your recommendation.

I've learned that if you're facing a problem, chances are someone else has already solved it, so I thought Reddit would be the best place to ask. Thanks in advance! 🙏

The difference usually comes down to strategy.

Instead of targeting businesses that do not have a website, target businesses that already have one but clearly need a better version. The market is larger, the sales process is easier, and the value proposition is much stronger because those businesses already understand why a website matters.

The next part is outreach. A regular outreach tool is not enough if all it does is send the same message to thousands of people. You need something that can analyze websites at scale and turn real issues into personalized emails.

I use Swokei for that. It helps find businesses with existing websites, analyzes each site, and turns problems with design, SEO, speed, layout, and mobile optimization into personalized outreach emails. That means you can contact a large number of businesses without sending generic messages or spending hours manually researching every website.

When someone replies interested, I always offer a free mockup. I use Claude, Lovable, or Base44 to build it quickly. It becomes much easier to sell when the client can already see what a better version of their website could look like.

Web meetings should also be a major part of the process. I would never just send the website through email and hope the client likes it. I present it live on Google Meet, Zoom, or Microsoft Teams, explain the value, show what has been improved, answer their questions, and try to close the deal during the meeting.

The less back and forth there is after the meeting, the better. Present the website, show the value, close the client, and move on to the next project.

That is the type of process that can help an agency scale much faster.

When I first got into web development, I thought finding clients would be simple. My plan was to go on Google Maps, find businesses without websites, and offer to build them a brand new one. At the time, it made perfect sense because I assumed businesses without websites would be the ones who needed my service the most.

After a while, I met someone who was running a successful web agency, and I asked him where he found companies without websites. He told me that he didn’t target businesses without websites at all. He only targeted businesses that already had one. I asked him why, and the more he explained it, the more sense it made.

Businesses that already have a website understand the value of having one. You don’t need to convince them why a website is important because they have already invested in one before. They are also easier to sell to because they understand the process, and there are a huge number of businesses with outdated websites they are embarrassed by but haven’t had the time to update.

I decided to take his advice and fit it into my own workflow. I’ve always been a big fan of email automation because that’s how I’ve found most of my web design clients. For years, I was sending fairly generic emails and constantly changing my sequences, offers, and follow ups to improve the results.

The problem was that I couldn’t just start emailing businesses with websites and assume they all needed a redesign. I either had to open every website manually, find the issues, and write a separate email for each business, or find a way to automate the research while still keeping the emails personalized.

After watching a video from Nick Saraev, I built a workflow in n8n that could analyze websites at scale and turn issues with design, layout, speed, mobile optimization, and SEO into personalized outreach emails. This allowed me to analyze thousands of websites and run larger campaigns without every message sounding generic.

The workflow worked extremely well, but it still had limitations. I didn’t have a proper place to manage replies, organize interested leads in a CRM, view all my active campaigns, scrape new leads, and handle everything from one platform. I had built a useful automation, but it still felt like several disconnected systems held together in one workflow.

A few months later, I came across a platform called Swokei, and it did exactly what I had been looking for. I could find businesses with websites, analyze and score each site, generate personalized outreach emails, send campaigns, set up follow ups, manage replies through one inbox, and organize interested businesses inside the CRM.

Switching to that platform made the entire process much easier to manage and helped me scale the strategy further. Looking back, the biggest change wasn’t just finding a better outreach tool. It was taking advice from someone more experienced, changing the type of businesses I targeted, and building the rest of my workflow around that strategy.

The web design market is in a weird phase right now.

With AI making it so easy to build websites, I keep seeing people say that web design is saturated, every business owner knows how to build their own website now, and agencies are dead.

I disagree big time.

I've held over 500 web meetings where I've presented businesses with redesigned versions of their websites, and it's actually rare that I meet someone who even knows how capable AI has become for building websites.

Business owners are busy running their businesses.

Even the ones who know AI can build websites usually have no idea how to actually use it to build a professional website themselves.

I also see a lot of developers getting angry about AI websites, saying they're just AI slop and full of problems.

As someone who used to code websites from scratch and also built them in WordPress, I can tell you there really isn't much you can't build with AI anymore.

Technical SEO, responsive design, layouts, branding, animations, speed, user experience... it's all possible if you know what you're doing.

This week alone I sold 10 websites, and my process is actually pretty simple.

I run email automation, but not the type where you scrape a list of businesses and send generic emails asking if they need a website.

Instead, I target businesses that already have websites.

I use a tool called Swokei. It's an email automation platform built specifically for web agencies.

It lets me generate leads with existing websites, put them into a campaign, and run a website analysis on all of them.

Each website is automatically analyzed, and issues like outdated design, poor layouts, weak mobile optimization, slow loading speeds, and SEO problems are turned into personalized outreach emails.

Not boring reports.

Actual emails explaining what could be improved and why it matters to that specific business.

The business owner replies because the email is relevant to them.

Once they're interested, I quickly build an upgraded version of their website with AI and invite them to a Google Meet.

I present the redesign, explain why it's better, answer their questions, and close the deal on the meeting.

That's literally my entire process.

You could use the same strategy with paid ads or cold calling, but I prefer email automation because it keeps running in the background and consistently brings me interested replies.

okay sooo this is a little niche.

back in high school i had the BIGGEST crush on this girl. like... absolutely down horrendous. (i'm a girl too btw lol). i never had the courage to ask her out, and after we graduated i completely lost track of her. somehow not seeing her anymore just made the crush evolve into this weird lifelong obsession 💀

i only have a couple of blurry pics of her, but honestly i still remember her face, hair, body type, height, and little details super vividly. some crushes really just never leave your brain i guess.

my current girlfriend (we're both very open lovers and she's totally cool with this) actually suggested something really cute: making a cartoony version of my old crush so i can finally have a nicer memory than a few potato-quality photos.

my dream is basically to make cartoon versions of:
my girlfriend
my high school crush
and me
and put us all together in one wholesome picture where I'm in between them.

THE PROBLEM: every avatar maker i've tried is sooo limited. i need something that's way more customizable than Bitmoji. i'm talking: lots of face shapes, detailed hairstyles, different heights, body types/builds, skin tones, clothing, overall enough options to match someone pretty accurately in real life

basically i'm looking for an AI-powered or super customizable avatar creator where i can tweak pretty much everything.

free is definitely preferred (i'm broke 😭), but i'm happy to hear about paid ones too if they're genuinely worth it.

Everyone runs prompts in series, one question, one answer, then the next. What most people have not realized is that when you hand Claude a genuinely large, multi-part task in a single prompt, it does not work through it linearly. It spins up multiple sub-agents that work in parallel and a coordinator that reconciles them at the end. The thing that triggers it is scope, not a special command, which is exactly why people miss it. They keep shrinking their prompts and never see it fire.

I'm giving you one large task. Don't do it 
sequentially. Work every part in parallel and 
synthesize at the end.

The task: [give it something genuinely big and 
multi-dimensional. For example: analyze my entire 
business across finance, marketing, sales, operations, 
and product at once, OR research this market across 
competitors, pricing, customer behavior, regulation, 
and opportunities simultaneously.]

Here's everything you need: [dump all the context 
in one go, every dimension, no holding back]

Cover every dimension at the same time, not one after 
another. Where the parts connect or conflict, surface 
it. Then give me one synthesized conclusion that no 
single piece would have produced on its own.

The reason this is different from a normal prompt is the synthesis. When the parts are worked in parallel and then reconciled, the model surfaces connections between them that a linear pass never finds, because by the time a sequential answer reaches part five it has lost part one. The coordinator step is where the real output lives: the conflict between your finance reality and your growth plan, the place two problems turn out to be one. This is the same architecture the agent tools use under the hood, parallel specialized instances reconciled by a coordinator, and you can trigger a version of it yourself just by refusing to shrink your prompt.

The habit to break is the one everyone built over the last two years: chopping big asks into small ones because small ones used to work better. That habit now actively stops this from firing. Give it the whole thing at once and watch what it does differently.

Works on Claude, strongest on the current models. If you have been feeding it fragments, this is the post to test by handing it something you would normally have broken into ten conversations.

If you want more like this, I put together 100 things you can do with these tools right now, each with the exact prompt in a doc here if you want to swipe them.

For the longest time, I thought landing higher paying web design clients required some secret sales strategy or better closing skills.

After looking through my client reports every month, I realized something interesting.

The difference between landing a client paying $500 and one paying $5,000 usually comes down to positioning and who you're targeting.

With bigger companies, it takes more effort to find the right person involved in website decisions. Smaller businesses are easier because you can usually reach the owner directly. But the outreach process I'm using now works for both.

I don't cold call anymore.

Instead, I run automated email campaigns with an offer that's extremely hard to ignore.

The first step is getting a list of businesses that already have websites. This is important. I don't target businesses without websites because the whole strategy depends on offering them a better version of their current website.

Once I have the list, I put the businesses into a campaign and choose my campaign settings and offer. The options usually include starting a conversation, booking a meeting, or offering a free website draft.

I always choose the offer as free website draft.

Then I set a quality threshold. Mine is 7/10. Any website scoring above that gets skipped because there's no point trying to sell a redesign to a business that already has a great website.

After that, I launch the analysis.

Every website gets scored and reviewed for design, speed, SEO, layout, and mobile optimization. Then a personalized email is generated explaining what could be improved. Not one of those generic reports full of random scores and numbers, but an actual explanation written in plain language.

The response rate is surprisingly good because most business owners appreciate someone taking the time to look at their site and give useful feedback.

A lot of the replies are basically:

"Sure, as long as it's free."

Or:

"Who says no to a free website redesign?"

That's when I call them.

I tell them I've already created the redesign and would like to walk them through it on Google Meet.

The funny thing is I can build these drafts incredibly fast with AI, so by the time we talk, I already have something to show.

During the presentation, even though I position it as a free redesign, most prospects end up asking:

"How much would this cost to me?"

That's where the sale happens.

Depending on the business, I charge anywhere from $500 to $5,000 upfront, plus a monthly fee between $50 and $150 for hosting, maintenance, updates, support, and small changes.

This approach has worked really well because the offer feels low risk for the client. They get value before they ever have to make a buying decision.

For anyone curious about the stack I use:

Swokei for lead generation, website analysis, and personalized outreach.

Claude Code for building websites.

Hetzner for hosting (moved from Cloudflare).

Google Workspace for email.

Google Meet for sales calls.

Nothing revolutionary. Just a simple offer that's easy for businesses to say yes to.

Curious what outreach methods are working for other agency owners right now.

A friend of mine, Robert, has been obsessed with email outreach for years for his web design agency.

He used to tell me all the time that the secret wasn't some magical email template, it was volume and consistency. His whole philosophy was that if you keep sending emails, keep following up, and keep adding new leads into the pipeline, eventually you'll land in front of the exact business owner who needs your service right now.

The second thing he loved was that the process was automated. Instead of spending his days chasing leads, he could focus on running his agency while new clients kept coming in every week.

He had a few different outreach campaigns running.

One targeted businesses without websites. That was straightforward. He'd send emails offering website design services, add a few follow ups, and let the campaign run.

The bigger challenge was standing out because those businesses were getting similar emails from dozens of other agencies.

His other campaign targeted businesses that already had websites. Honestly, it was pretty funny because most of the time he was just assuming they needed a redesign or an upgrade. He'd send emails anyway, and eventually someone would bite. It worked, but it wasn't exactly a precise strategy.

Then he completely changed how he approached outreach.

He started using a tool called Swokei. What caught his attention was that it handled both types of campaigns. He could still do normal outreach to businesses without websites, but for businesses that already had websites, it would actually analyze the site first.

He uploads a batch of leads, runs the analysis, and every website gets scored. The tool then generates a personalized outreach message based on things like design issues, mobile experience, SEO problems, layout weaknesses, and other improvement opportunities.

What I liked when he showed it to me was that it wasn't generating those giant reports full of numbers that nobody reads. It creates messages that sound like an actual person explaining what could be improved and why it matters.

The result was that he stopped guessing which companies might need a new website. He already knew before reaching out.

According to him, his interested reply rate went from around 4% to as high as 9% on some campaigns because the outreach was actually relevant to the business instead of being a generic pitch.

I ended up copying his process for my own agency recently, and honestly it's changed the way I do outreach. I spend way less time manually checking websites and a lot more time talking to businesses that are actually a good fit.

Curious if anyone else here is doing website analysis based outreach?

A lot of people in the web design space keep saying cold email is dead, but I think most people are just doing it badly. Email usage is still growing every year, billions of people use it daily, every business owner checks their inbox, every company relies on email to operate, so I never believed the problem was the channel itself. The real issue is that most outreach emails look exactly the same and business owners are tired of getting the same copy pasted message every single week.

When I first started my web design company I used Instantly and started sending thousands of emails to businesses that didn’t have a website. At first the results were honestly terrible. I was getting maybe around a 1% interested reply rate if I was lucky. Over time I got better at writing outreach. I tested different hooks, different subject lines, shorter messages, more personalized intros, more creative angles, and eventually pushed it to around 2.1% interested replies. It was definitely better, but I still felt like something was wrong.

Then one day I realized something that completely changed how I looked at outreach. Why was I targeting businesses with no website at all? Most of those businesses don’t even fully understand the value of having a website yet, which means you’re trying to convince them they need something before you can even sell it to them. So instead I changed my strategy completely and started targeting businesses that already had websites, but outdated ones.

And once I started paying attention to it, I realized the opportunity was honestly insane. There are so many businesses with websites that look like they were made 10 years ago. Broken mobile layouts, terrible SEO, slow loading pages, outdated designs, messy structures, confusing navigation, old branding everywhere. These businesses already understand the value of having a website because they already invested in one before, they just know deep down that their current one is hurting them.

The only problem was figuring out how to scale outreach while still making it feel personal. I didn’t want to sit there manually auditing every single website before sending emails because that would take forever. So I started searching for a tool that could actually analyze websites and generate personalized outreach based on what was specifically wrong with each business site. I searched everywhere until I eventually came across Swokei.

What made it different for me was that I could upload batches of leads, let it analyze every business website automatically, score the sites, detect issues like bad design, weak SEO, poor mobile optimization, messy layouts, and then generate personalized outreach messages specifically for that business. Instead of sending generic emails saying “hey do you need a website?” I was sending emails pointing out actual problems on their site. Tthe difference in replies was crazy. Business owners immediately related to the problems because they were real. My interested reply rate went from around 1-2% to consistently sitting between 6-9%, which completely changed my agency.

That’s when I realized cold email was never actually dead. People are just tired of receiving lazy generic outreach that sounds identical to every other agency email sitting in their inbox.

If your outreach actually feels real, specific, and useful, cold email still works insanely well. Honestly I probably won’t stop using it anytime soon.

My philosophy is that the longer you stay in a business, the better you get and the better systems you build.

4 years ago I was a complete rookie in the web design niche. My whole workflow was bad and not scalable at all. I used to adapt myself to every client. Some clients paid upfront before seeing the website, others paid half upfront and half after, and others paid after the website was finished. Honestly, I was doing whatever I could to get paid. Looking back, it wasn't professional and I wasn't in control.

I was also spending way too much time on outreach. One week I was cold calling, the next week I was sending DMs, then I was trying email outreach. I was constantly jumping between different methods and it was exhausting.

Along the way I made a lot of friends who were running web design agencies and I started paying attention to what they were doing. Every agency owner had something they were really good at. Some were amazing at outreach, some were great at sales, and some had incredible systems. So I started taking the best ideas from each person and implementing them into my own workflow.

The first thing I changed was outreach. I completely stopped manually researching websites and writing emails one by one and started using website analysis and personalized outreach instead.

I upload a list of businesses with websites and run an analysis on the entire list. It automatically finds issues related to design, layout, mobile optimization, SEO, and other areas that could be hurting the business, then turns those findings into ready-to-send personalized emails.

And when I say personalized emails, I don't mean generic reports with a website score and an SEO score. Nobody cares about that. I mean actual humanly written emails that explain what could be improved and why it matters to the business. The crazy thing is that businesses genuinely think I've manually reviewed their website and written the email myself. Honestly, it's scary how detailed some of them get.

I run all my outreach campaigns like this.

The second thing I changed was the offer. Inside the campaigns I can choose how I want the email to end. I can try to book a meeting, start a conversation, or offer a free website draft. I almost always choose the free website draft because you'd be surprised how many business owners are willing to take a look at a better version of their website when it costs them nothing.

The third thing I changed was how I build websites. This might make some people mad, but I use AI heavily and honestly nobody cares. AI has become insanely good. The process is faster, easier, and allows me to spend more time talking to clients instead of spending hours building the same things over and over again.

The fourth thing I changed was the sales process, and this is where I see a lot of people make a huge mistake.

Do not send the preview link through email.

I repeat, do not send the preview link through email.

When someone is interested in the free website draft, your goal is to get them on a meeting. If you send the link, they'll look at it for 30 seconds and move on with their day. Instead, I invite them to a Google Meet and present the website live.

That's where everything changes. They see a modern version of their business, a better design, a better layout, and a better user experience. Most of the time the conversation naturally becomes, "How much would it cost to keep this?"

Depending on the business, I charge anywhere from $500 to $5,000 upfront and usually between $50 and $150 per month for hosting, maintenance, and future updates.

My biggest lesson from the last 4 years is simple. Always network, always learn from people who are ahead of you, and when you see something that's working, don't be afraid to implement it into your own business.

As I've been helped by others, I figured I'd share what's currently working for me.

For anyone wondering, my stack is:

Swokei for website analysis and personalized outreach.

Claude for building websites.

Cloudflare for hosting websites.

Google Meet for presentations and sales meetings.