There's nothing quite like comp week. A brief drops, you've got seven days, and suddenly you're building something real with Claude instead of just reading about it. The deadline makes you finish. And when you post your repo, you're standing next to other people who just did the same thing, which is so much fun! Every entrant in the weekly comps gets a feedback file from @Jake Van Clief , @David Vogel, @Bas Rosario, @Don Roy and @Matthew Creamer: what worked, two fixes, and the one thing that would have moved you up. I've learned more from those files than from anything else I've done with AI. People who build this stuff for a living, reading your work line by line, every week... Amazing! Comp #15 had 7 entries. There are 54,000 of us... so most people are watching, not playing. If that's you, here's how I'd start. You won't be doing it alone: Claude is your partner the whole way through. This is a framework for how I approach these competitions... 1. Read the brief twice, then copy out the judging lines. Those checkmarks are the whole test. Everything you build should answer one of them. 2. Brainstorm with Claude, starting from what you know. Paste in the brief, tell it about your own work, and ask for ideas. A workflow from your own job beats a clever idea you'd have to learn first. Don't worry if none of Claude's ideas are right. Once you start talking ideas through, your own start showing up... 3. Keep going until you land on the idea, then turn it into a PRD. A PRD (product requirements document) is a short plan of what you're building and why. The lessons from @Bas Rosario and @Don Roy give a great shape for it. Say what it's FOR, show what good looks like (an example or two), show what bad looks like, list what it can and can't use, and say how it checks its own work: done, try again, or stop and ask a person. Claude can write it with you. 4. Write one sentence that says what done looks like before you build anything. Claude can help you sharpen it. 5. Build it as an ICM folder, then trace the path. ICM is Jake's method: the folder structure is the plan, with one file per job, so the AI reads only what it needs at each step. The ICM architect skill helps Claude lay out the folders. Then ask Claude to trace a task through it: which files it would read, in what order, and why. If the route looks wrong, the structure is wrong, and it's much cheaper to fix now than after you build. 6. Test it the way the judges will. They clone your repo fresh and try to break it. So clone it into an empty folder, follow your own README like a stranger, and run every claim you make. Ask Claude to try to break it too. 7. Say where it falls short. The judges reward that. 8. Post it with the repo link on the first line, then read your feedback file. That's where the learning happens.

🎁 $1,000 IN PLATFORM CREDITS🎁 One winner takes it. 📋 THE CHALLENGE Pick your weakest entry from any past comp. Read the feedback file we sent you. Rebuild it. Then prove the rebuild is better. Every entrant since the Cartographer has a file that says what worked, two fixes, and the one thing that would have moved them up. Most of those files have been read once. This week you act on one. This week's deliverable is the original pinned, the feedback file, the rebuild, and a control showing old against new. 🎯 PICK YOUR ENTRY Any comp you entered. Cartographer, Auditor, Translator, Control, or anything earlier if you still have the repo. Pick the one where the feedback file stung the most. That is the one with the most room. If you have never entered, you can still play. Pick any public repo from a past comp whose author has posted that it is open for rebuilds, and treat the public results post as your feedback file. Credit them in the README. A few sparks: - Your Cartographer map, rebuilt so the territory ships pinned in the repo - Your Auditor, rebuilt so every finding resolves to a provision a mod can open - Your Translator, rebuilt so the shape holds on the input that broke it - Your Control, rebuilt around the question the folder lost on - Any entry whose README a stranger could not walk The pattern is the same every time. The feedback named a gap. You close it and show the closure. 🔥 THE ANGLE THIS WEEK Last comp was The Control. You ran the same questions with and without a folder and committed both. The Rebuild runs the same test on two versions of the same folder. Original on one arm. Rebuild on the other. Same questions, same order. The questions come from the feedback file, so the test is aimed at the exact thing you were told to fix. In the Cartographer round, Adam put his README in front of an outsider, watched her fail for twenty minutes, cut it from 904 words to 471, and kept the old version in the repo so you could see the change. That is a rebuild with the receipt attached. This week everyone ships one.

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but...I'm using the Decster AI's learning path and am stuck because I'm supposed to watch a video and then make a post on it, but the video is not found (https://www.skool.com/cliefnotes/classroom/036893d9?md=0a94c8e73cbe494dba3dc8ccb539b10b).

Hi Everyone! I am sure this is a fraction of the capability some of you are all delivering, but wanted to share a win of mine, being a newbie and not fully advanced in the world of ICM. First Project of mine is - A Bookkeeping agent that collects Bank Statement CSVs via its Intray, reviews and processes these transactions with guidance and mapping, and delivering a CSV output to enter into my accounting software. This is for clients who don't use accounting systems such as Xero and Quickbooks for monetary reasons, or smaller businesses who want to save on their costs. I produced this project in around an hour and am so chuffed with results, it will save me hours when it comes to smaller bookkeeping and accounts preparation work. @Jake Van Clief thank you for introducing me to the world of ICM, I can't wait to see where this knowledge takes me, and I hope in the future I can build solutions for other businesses and perhaps profit from some!

If you've been following along, I swear I am not getting shiny object syndrome. I'm not going to start building robots tomorrow. But it's on the docket. Here's why... People are trying to build humanoid cleaning robots, but that's not the right move. The ICM method demonstrates, by the nature of it, a future where robots have specialty jobs, rather than an all-in-one perfectly dexterous machine. And maybe we do get there eventually, but I'm watching what these companies are trying to do with the cleaning robots and I think they're doing it all wrong. The future is not the terminator-maid. Women buy house cleaning, for the most part. They don't want a big heavy ass machine toppling on their kids or pets. They don't want a human inside the robot, which, by the way is how the company in SF is managing to do this. It's creepy and weird, and we're a long way from a robot being able to hand wash the dishes. No. The future for house cleaning is homes that are self cleaning, and/or wally---not the terminator--but a team of wally's that assist. Even in house cleaning, I'm betting that a human stays in the loop. Somebody has to service the robots, at the very least. As soon as I can afford it, and once we're cruising with our ICM system installed, I'm going to start developing robots. At least, I will hire someone that works towards this. If I can make a fleet of cleaning robots, we're gonna be the coolest cleaning company that has ever existed. And just maybe we can change the world, too.