AI Automation

Put AI to work on the jobs nobody wants to do

Not chatbots for the sake of it. I use language models where they genuinely beat a rule: reading messy documents, sorting inbound requests, extracting data, drafting copy and making the small judgement calls that currently sit on somebody’s desk.

Seven years building automation, the last three of them with language models in production. I have also seen where AI is the wrong answer, and I will tell you when a plain rule would be cheaper and more reliable.

The problem

Traditional automation stops where judgement starts

Zapier and n8n are excellent at fixed steps. They fall apart the moment a human has to read something and decide.

What rules handle well

“When a form is submitted, create a CRM record and send an email.” Every input looks the same, every branch is known in advance, and the same action fires every time. This should never involve AI. It is faster, cheaper and more predictable as a plain workflow.

Where rules break

“Read this invoice and pull out the totals.” Every supplier formats differently. “Route this email to the right team.” The meaning matters, not keywords. “Is this lead worth a call?” That is a judgement made from context. Rules here become hundreds of brittle conditions that break on the next edge case.

The honest test: if you can write down every rule on one page and they never change, use a rule. If a person has to look at each item and think before acting, that is where a model earns its cost.

What I automate with AI

Six jobs that used to need a person reading every one

These are the builds I am asked for most often, and the ones where the return is easiest to measure.

📄

Document processing

Invoices, contracts, applications, delivery notes and PDFs read automatically. Fields extracted, validated against your own rules, then written straight into your accounting system or CRM. Typical result: a person who spent two hours a day on data entry spends ten minutes reviewing exceptions.

📩

Inbox triage and routing

Inbound email and form submissions read, categorised by intent, prioritised by urgency and routed to the right person or pipeline with a short summary attached. Sales enquiries stop sitting behind support tickets.

Content generation

Blog posts, product descriptions, proposals and follow-up copy drafted in your voice on a schedule, with a human approval step wherever you want one. This is the same engine behind my blog posting agent.

🔍

Data extraction and enrichment

Company and contact records enriched from public sources, deduplicated, normalised and scored. The difference between a CRM you can segment and one nobody trusts.

Decision automation

Lead scoring, eligibility checks, refund approvals and routing decisions driven by a model reading the full context rather than a brittle if-then chain. Every decision logged with its reasoning so you can audit it.

🎤

Call and meeting summaries

Calls transcribed, summarised and logged to the CRM with action items assigned to owners. Nothing depends on somebody remembering to write it up afterwards.

Choosing correctly

Rule, model, or both

Most builds I ship are a rule doing the heavy lifting with a model handling only the ambiguous cases. That is usually the cheapest design and the most reliable.

The taskBest toolWhy
Form submitted, create CRM recordRuleFixed inputs, fixed output. A model adds cost and latency for nothing.
Classify inbound email by intentModelMeaning matters more than keywords; phrasing varies endlessly.
Extract totals from supplier invoicesModel + validation ruleThe model reads any layout; a rule checks the maths before it is trusted.
Send reminder 3 days before renewalRulePure scheduling. Nothing to interpret.
Score a lead on fit and urgencyModelJudgement from context that a scoring matrix cannot capture.
Move a deal stage when a contract is signedRuleA definite event with one correct response.

How I build it

Built with guardrails, not vibes

An AI automation that is right 80% of the time and silently wrong the rest is worse than no automation. Every build gets the same treatment.

01

Find the judgement

We walk the process and mark every point a person makes a small repeatable decision. That is where a model pays off, and nowhere else.

02

Pick the approach

A model, a rule, or both. I will tell you honestly when the cheaper option is good enough, including when the answer is no automation at all.

03

Add guardrails

Validation on every output, confidence thresholds, and a human review step wherever a wrong answer would be expensive. Low-confidence cases get escalated, not guessed.

04

Test on your real data

Run against your actual historic records and measure accuracy against known-correct answers before anything touches live systems.

05

Deploy and monitor

Live with full logging, so you can see what it decided and why. Alerts on failure paths and on accuracy drift.

What it costs to run

The part most people forget to ask about

Build cost

Quoted per project after the discovery call, once the scope is genuinely understood. A single document-processing pipeline is typically a few days of work; a multi-step agent with CRM integration is longer. You get a fixed figure before anything starts.

Running cost

Model usage is billed by volume and is yours directly, not marked up through me. I size this during scoping so you know the monthly figure before you commit, and I design prompts to keep it low.

Ongoing support

30 days included on every build. After that, a monthly retainer covers monitoring, accuracy tuning and changes as your process evolves. Optional, never automatic.

What I build AI automation with

OpenAI APIClaude APILangChainPythonn8nZapierMake.comVector searchWebhooksREST APIsOpenAI APIClaude APILangChainPythonn8nZapierMake.comVector searchWebhooksREST APIs

Common questions

AI automation, answered honestly

It depends entirely on the task, which is why I measure it on your data before you commit. Structured extraction from documents typically lands in the high nineties once validation rules are added. Classification and routing are usually similar. Anything requiring genuine subjective judgement is lower, and for those I build a human review step rather than pretending otherwise. You see the measured accuracy before go-live, not a promise.
Every build has a confidence threshold. Below it, the item is routed to a person instead of being processed automatically. Outputs are validated against rules where a correct answer is checkable, such as invoice totals matching line items. Everything is logged with its reasoning, so when something is wrong you can see exactly why and fix the cause rather than guessing.
No. I build on API tiers where submitted data is not used for training by default, and I configure retention settings accordingly. If you handle regulated data we scope that explicitly at the start, including what may leave your systems and what must not. Where necessary, sensitive fields are redacted before anything is sent to a model.
Whichever fits the task and budget, usually Claude or GPT. I am not tied to one vendor and I build so the model can be swapped without rewriting the workflow. For simple classification a smaller, cheaper model is often as accurate as a large one at a fraction of the running cost, and I will use it when it is.
Often a normal automation does, and I will say so. If your inputs are consistent and your rules are stable, a plain workflow is faster, cheaper and more reliable. I only reach for a model when something has to be read, interpreted or judged. Plenty of my discovery calls end with a recommendation that costs less than the caller expected.
A single well-defined pipeline, such as invoice extraction into your accounting system, is usually a few days to a week. A multi-step agent connected to your CRM with review workflows runs two to four weeks. You get a firm timeline in the proposal, before any work begins.
A sample of real data, ideally including the awkward cases, and access to the systems the automation must read from and write to. The single most useful thing you can bring is a set of examples with the correct answers already known, because that is what I measure accuracy against.
Everything ships with documentation explaining what it does, what triggers it and how to adjust it. Prompts and thresholds are kept in configuration rather than buried in code, so straightforward changes do not require me. You are never locked in.

Ready when you are

Have a job that needs judgement?

Bring me the task that is too messy for normal automation. On a free 30-minute call I will tell you honestly whether AI is the right tool, what accuracy to expect, and what it would cost to run.

Book a free 30-min call →