Brand Graphics Landing Pages Blog Posts Case Studies In-house LLM prompt orchestrator + memory layer
FigJam playground

Workflow research — the in-house LLM playground.

Active FigJam board where the four agentic workflows are being mapped to our self-hosted LLM. Quick access to the live thinking.

Open in Figma

With agentic workflows — what we unlock

  • Compress time-to-draft. Repeatable assets go from hours to minutes across all four workflows.
  • Hold brand consistency. Every artifact looks like Intelligaia regardless of who briefed it.
  • Capture institutional knowledge. Visual and voice rules live in a versioned skill, not in private notes apps.
  • Free senior designer time. Heroes, pages, and standard case studies stop being a queue at the senior desk.
  • Compound improvement. Every correction sharpens the next run. The agents converge toward our taste.
  • Match AI-native cadence. Ship at the speed of studios using off-the-shelf AI — staying recognizably Intelligaia.

Without — what slows us down

  • Every asset starts from scratch. Designers re-prompt and re-iterate on work that should be repeatable.
  • Style drifts between designers. Brand consistency degrades quietly until a client notices.
  • Senior designers become bottlenecks. Every illustration and page needs a senior eye before it ships.
  • Onboarding takes weeks. Teaching our visual language to a new hire is a long look-and-mimic process.
  • Prompt knowledge leaks out. Private libraries leave with people. We rebuild from zero every hire.
  • Cadence lags. One or two blog heroes a quarter when AI-native studios ship daily.

Pick a workflow — see the three AI tools in action

Pilot
Planning
How these agents learn

The same loop, under every agent

Every agent in this program shares one self-learning loop — only the prompt and memory contents differ. Pre-flight reads the rules and gold examples → intake asks what's missing → draft uses gold as form and house-style as voice → self-critique flags anything that historically draws a correction → show and capture every edit with a one-line reason → human promotes to gold on demand.

Memory plus examples. No fine-tuning, no auto-promotion. By the third pilot week the corrections-per-run line trends down — that's the whole game. If it doesn't, the agent isn't working and we change it or retire it.

Brand Graphics — three AI tools in action

Hero illustrations and visual assets across five locked style modes. Pick the path that fits your access.

Pilot

Pure ChatGPT — setup walkthrough

One Custom GPT holds the style rules, banned-styles guardrails, and your reference images. You type a brief; DALL-E renders. ChatGPT Plus, Pro, or Team required (Custom GPTs aren't on the free tier).

1
Open the GPT Builder

Sign in at chatgpt.com. Left sidebar → Explore GPTs → top-right Create. Switch to the Configure tab.

2
Fill the Configure form
  • Name: Intelligaia Illustration
  • Description: "Generates illustrations in the Intelligaia visual language."
  • Instructions: Paste the contents of image-tool-instructions.md from the skill folder (~4,200 characters).
  • Conversation starters: Add four — one per mode (BL / YH / PP / SP / IT).
  • Knowledge: Upload 4–5 mode-prefixed reference images per mode (~20 total). Naming pattern: BL-fed.png, YH-head-fingerprint.png, etc.
  • Capabilities: Enable DALL-E Image Generation. Turn off Web Browsing and Code Interpreter.
3
Save and share

Top-right Create. Sharing scope: Anyone with the link for the team. Pin to your sidebar for one-click access.

4
Test it

Paste this test brief and confirm the output looks like the FED / GOODNESS / UX / W reference series:

Hero illustration for an upcoming blog post titled "AGENTS" — about the architecture of self-learning AI agents in design. BL mode. 16:9 hero.
Limit of this path. The GPT does not learn between runs. Every chat starts fresh with the same Instructions. If you find yourself making the same correction over and over, update the Instructions block — that's the only way the GPT "learns."

Workflow details — once it's running

From the canonical spec · May 2026
Triggers

Phrases that load the agent automatically in a Claude session.

Illustration for [X] Hero image for [post/page] Intelligaia-style illustration of [Y] Create variants of this illustration Design a hero for [landing page / case study] Make a graphic for our LinkedIn post
Intake

What the agent asks before generating, if missing from the brief.

  • Intended use — hero, in-line, social, OG, deck, or concept exploration
  • Concept — what the illustration depicts in 1–2 sentences
  • Style mode — BL / YH / PP / SP / IT (agent proposes one based on the brief, you confirm)
  • Mood — energetic, contemplative, technical, warm, or serious
  • Palette — default for the chosen mode, or a variation
  • Aspect ratio + dimensions — 16:9 default for hero, 1:1 social, 4:5 OG
  • Number of variants — 3 (default) or 5
  • Image-gen tool — your Custom GPT or your Gem
Output layout

What lands back in chat after a successful run.

Primary promptProse prompt, ready to paste into your Custom GPT or Gem.
3 variantsComposition variant · palette variant · concept variant. All stay inside the chosen mode.
Negative blockEmbedded as plain prose inside each prompt — bans glossy 3D, photoreal, drop shadows, cyberpunk neon, generic SaaS illustration style, etc.
Reference suggestions2–3 mode-matched files from examples/gold/{mode}/ to attach in-chat for extra style adherence.
ChecklistPost-generation checks — mode rules respected, palette match, intentional negative space, no banned styles.
Prompt library

One starter prompt per mode — pulled directly from prompt-patterns.md. Swap the bracketed slot for the brief, paste into your GPT or Gem.

BL — Brand Letter hero with concept word, isometric blocky letters on yellow
Generate an editorial isometric brand-letter illustration in the Intelligaia style. The composition centers on large isometric 3D blocky letters that spell the concept word "[CONCEPT WORD]". Fill the letters with a blue-to-pink-to-purple gradient — left face cool teal-blue (#3B5BDB), right face warm pink-magenta (#D6336C), top face mid-purple (#7048E8). Place on a saturated yellow background (#FFD923). Surround the letters with small low-opacity yellow flat geometric shapes (cubes, triangles, hexagons) at around 30% opacity. Add short cyan-teal accent lines suggesting motion near the lower-left of the letters. Include one or two small isometric thumbnail icons in the top-right area. Keep negative space on the left third of the frame. Aspect ratio 16:9.

Match the style of the attached reference images. Never produce: photorealism, glossy 3D, drop shadows, glassmorphism, lens flares, tech glow, sci-fi neon, cyberpunk lighting, gradient skies, pastel startup illustrations, stock SaaS illustration style, corporate handshake imagery, anime, mascot styles, hyper-detailed AI faces, robot clichés, blue-purple brain backgrounds, random circuit backgrounds, hologram dashboards, isometric tech city scenes, or generic "AI startup" visuals.
YH — Yellow Hero single-subject atmospheric, cross-hatched orange-red on yellow
Generate a single-subject editorial hero illustration in the Intelligaia style. The composition centers on one large subject — [SUBJECT: head silhouette / pair of hands / building / fingerprint] — drawn with cross-hatched orange-red linework (#E25822). Layer a graphic system overlay onto the subject: [OVERLAY: circuit lines / dot pattern / gradient cloud / fingerprint pattern]. Place the subject on the right side of the frame on a saturated yellow background (#FFD923). Support with small accent elements: a single blue-pink-purple gradient cube, small gears, contour lines, dots. Keep the left side as negative space. Aspect ratio 16:9.

Match the style of the attached reference images. (Same negative block as BL.)
PP — Pop-Art Halftone profile figures with CMYK halftone shading
Generate a vibrant pop-art halftone illustration in the Intelligaia style. Show [N] profile figures (side-view) with stylized faces. Use strong CMYK halftone dot shading in pink (#EC4899), blue (#38BDF8), cyan, yellow (#FACC15), and magenta. Add bold geometric rectangle or shape accents in the surrounding space. Background is [saturated yellow / cream (#FAFAF6) / neutral]. Magazine-style composition with restrained negative space. Aspect ratio 16:9 (or 1:1 for portrait close-up).

Match the style of the attached reference images. (Same negative block as BL.)
SP — Sketch + Product mixed-media, sketch overlay around real UI
Generate a mixed-media editorial illustration in the Intelligaia style. Show cross-hatched comic-book sketch-style hands or figures drawn in orange-red (#E25822) or charcoal linework, positioned around real product UI screenshots that serve as compositional anchors. Figures should be shown [placing post-its / pointing at the UI / holding tablets]. The background is [gray / neutral / soft gradient (pink to green to cyan)]. Never use yellow as background in this mode. Dynamic asymmetric composition. Aspect ratio 16:9.

Note: I will provide the product UI screenshots separately. Your job is to generate the sketch elements (figures, hands) in a layout that can be composited with the UI in post.

Match the style of the attached reference images. (Same negative block as BL.)
IT — Clean Isometric low-poly tech objects, crisp vector finish
Generate a clean low-poly isometric illustration in the Intelligaia style. The subject is an axonometric 3D tech object — [SUBJECT: lighthouse / boat / magnifying glass / mountain peak / abstract platform]. Use crisp edges, a limited palette of 2–3 colors, no halftone or grain texture, and a clean vector finish. Set on a [cyan (#4FB8C9) / neutral / soft gradient] background. Add small wireframe line elements in the background and small geometric platform tiles as supporting details. Aspect ratio 16:9.

Match the style of the attached reference images. (Same negative block as BL.)
Edge cases

What the agent refuses or routes elsewhere — the brand and legal guardrails.

  • Client logo or named real product → agent never generates; routes to manual collage or licensed source.
  • Photoreal or portrait of a real person → agent refuses; routes to photography.
  • Sub-brand illustration → agent surfaces this and asks which sub-brand tokens apply before generating.
  • Brief implies a banned style (glossy 3D, gradient sky, AI brain background, etc.) → agent surfaces the conflict and asks before generating.
Success metrics

Targets at month 3. If these aren't met, the agent isn't working and we change it or retire it.

First-generation on-brand hit rate
≥ 70% by month 2
Designer post-edit time per illustration
≤ 10 min (from 30+)
Variant hit rate (≥ 1 publishable variant)
≥ 50% by month 2

Landing Pages — two scenarios, one architecture

Claude only. Internal — the next intelligaia.com homepage version, layered on our existing intelligaia-landing-pages skill. Client — a new multi-stage agent that ingests analytics, user feedback, and customer insights, then produces hypothesis-tagged variants ready for A/B testing.

Planning

Internal — extend the existing skill with memory

The intelligaia-landing-pages skill is already installed. It packages two locked homepage templates (v8 dark, v9 yellow), the 12 golden rules, the shared header/footer/tokens, the particle engine spec, and the below-banner section catalog. Today it's a stateless templated generator. Four steps turn it into a self-learning agent.

1
Confirm the skill is installed

In any Claude session, ask "list my skills" and look for intelligaia-landing-pages. Or check the folder directly:

ls ~/.claude/skills/intelligaia-landing-pages/
# expected: SKILL.md, references/, templates/
2
Add the memory layer on top of the existing skill

Don't rebuild — layer memory/ and examples/gold/ onto the skill, same pattern as intelligaia-graphics-skill:

intelligaia-landing-pages/      ← existing skill, unchanged
├── SKILL.md                    ← existing
├── references/                 ← existing (golden-rules, v8-spec, v9-spec, etc.)
├── templates/                  ← existing (v8-template.html, v9-template.html)
├── memory/                     ← NEW
│   ├── house-style.md          rhythm choices that worked, sections that fell flat
│   ├── glossary.md             capability names, banner-slide canon, banned filler
│   ├── corrections.jsonl       starts empty
│   └── ratings.jsonl           starts empty
└── examples/                   ← NEW
    ├── gold/
    │   ├── home-v8/    brief.md + final.html
    │   ├── home-v9/    brief.md + final.html
    │   └── home-v10/   brief.md + final.html
    └── index.md
3
Seed gold + write house-style v0

Drop the best shipped homepage versions into examples/gold/, each with its original brief. Write a one-page house-style.md from a 30-min interview with Yogesh — capture which below-banner rhythms have already been used, which sections always get rewritten, which CTAs hold up. Commit via commit-skills-to-git so the team gets the same version.

4
Test the next version

Trigger the agent with a brief that explicitly differs from the last version's rhythm:

Build the next Intelligaia homepage version.
Template: v9 (yellow carousel banner).
Audience: enterprise design leaders.
Below-banner rhythm: must differ from the last v9 — propose 2 fresh section combinations from the section catalog.
Keep the four banner slides; update copy only if I confirm.
Golden rules are locked. The 12 rules in references/golden-rules.md are non-negotiable without explicit override. The agent should flag any brief that conflicts with a rule — not quietly comply.

Workflow details — once it's running

Internal and Client side-by-side · May 2026
Triggers

Phrases that load the right agent automatically in a Claude session.

Internal · intelligaia.com
Build the next Intelligaia homepage version New v9 with a different below-banner rhythm Refresh the intelligaia.com hero Section catalog audit
Client · as a service
Client LP for [Acme] Run conversion discovery on [URL] Build hypothesis-driven LP variants for [client] Turn this client research into an LP test plan
Intake

What the agent asks before generating, if missing from the brief. Client intake is heavier — it has to confirm data sufficiency before any work begins.

Internal intake
  • Template — v8 (dark banner) or v9 (yellow carousel)
  • Version number — defaults to next sequential intelligaia-home-vN.html
  • Below-banner rhythm — what to keep, what to change vs. last version
  • Banner-slide overrides — default: the four locked slides (UX Design / AI PoC / Tech + AI / Workshops)
  • Section catalog choices — or let the agent propose 2 fresh combinations
Client intake (per engagement)
  • Client + sector + product — named, anonymized, or under NDA
  • Current site URL — or "no current site, pre-launch"
  • Brand kit — logo, color tokens, typography, voice guide
  • Primary goal — single conversion event the LP optimizes for
  • Audience segment(s) — JTBD if available
  • Confidentiality — drives the phrasing and screenshot rules
  • Engagement scope — one LP, multi-variant test, or ongoing CRO program
Inputs Client scenario only

What the agent expects in stage 1 (Discovery). File upload is the primary path — the client sends exports. MCP connectors for GA4, Hotjar, and Mixpanel come in phase 2, once the offering is proven.

SourceFormatUsed forRequired?
Brand kit PDF · Figma export · Zeplin Per-client token system, voice rules Required
Current site URL · HTML export Baseline for comparison, structure audit Required
Analytics GA4 export · Plausible · Mixpanel CSV Conversion baseline, drop-off points, traffic mix Required · ≥ 90 days
Heatmaps / recordings Hotjar · Clarity · FullStory export Friction points, scroll depth, dead-click zones Recommended
User feedback NPS verbatims CSV · surveys · support tickets JTBD, common objections, language the audience uses Recommended
Sales-call transcripts TXT · Gong / Chorus export Objection mining, outcome language, deal-killers Recommended
Past A/B test results Any format Hypotheses already tested → skip; surprises → highlight If available
Personas / JTBD docs Doc · Notion export · PDF Audience model, segment definitions If available

If analytics covers fewer than 30 days, the agent flags it, uses qualitative assumptions, and marks every assumption explicitly. It never silently fills the gap.

Output layout

Internal returns one HTML file. Client returns a bundle.

Internal output · single HTML
HeroBanner per chosen template (v8 dark, v9 yellow). Locked rules apply.
Below-bannerFresh rhythm picked from the section catalog — different from the last version.
Customer proofLogos on 2nd or 3rd fold — never bottom of page.
Testimonial (opt.)Dedicated band, never inside the Contact form, never on gray paper-100.
Save target~/Documents/Claude/Projects/Intelligaia Website Design/intelligaia-home-vN.html + update CLAUDE.md with the section order used.
Client output · the engagement bundle
insights.mdJTBD · top 3 friction points · top 3 objections · audience segments · conversion-killing patterns. Every claim cited to a source.
hypotheses.md2–3 testable hypotheses with evidence basis and expected metric movement. Awaits sign-off.
variant-N-{slug}.htmlOne HTML per approved hypothesis, in client tokens. Tagged with the hypothesis it tests.
instrumentation.mdGA4 event spec · heatmap setup · success metric per variant · sample-size guidance · test duration.
dataLayer.jsonMachine-readable schema for the client's dev team to wire up.
test-plan.mdVariants on test · traffic split · decision criteria · readout date.
Prompt library

Internal prompts cover the 4 page-purpose patterns. Client prompts cover the 4 most common engagement shapes.

Internal prompts (4)
Next v8 version · dark banner + particle morph
Build the next Intelligaia homepage version.
Template: v8 (black hero with scroll-driven particle morph).
Below-banner rhythm: propose 2 fresh combinations from the section catalog
   that differ from the last 3 shipped versions.
Banner content: keep the four locked slides; copy can shift if I confirm.
Save as intelligaia-home-v{next}.html and update CLAUDE.md.
Next v9 version · yellow carousel banner
Build the next Intelligaia homepage version.
Template: v9 (yellow contained carousel banner).
Below-banner rhythm: must differ from the last v9.
Customer logos: on 2nd or 3rd fold (not bottom).
If you can't find a fresh section combination, ask before falling back to old patterns.
Hero refresh only · banner reshape, sections unchanged
Reshape the v9 hero only.
Keep all below-banner sections from the most recent v9 unchanged.
Propose: 3 alternative banner copy treatments + 1 alternative right-side graphic concept.
Follow the locked rules (no full-viewport yellow, no red strokes, italic title with no gradient).
Section catalog audit · what's been used, what hasn't
Audit our homepage section catalog.
Read every shipped version in examples/gold/ and CLAUDE.md.
Report:
  · Section combinations already used (per template)
  · Combinations still untried
  · Sections that consistently get rewritten (candidates to retire)
  · 3 new section ideas worth adding to the catalog.
Client prompts (4)
Full discovery · all materials in, run the whole flow up to hypothesis gate
Client LP for [Acme Corp].
Materials attached:
  · Brand kit (PDF)
  · Current site URL: https://acme.com/product
  · GA4 90-day export (CSV)
  · Hotjar heatmaps from the homepage (PNG + CSV)
  · NPS verbatims last 90 days (CSV)
  · 12 sales-call transcripts (TXT)
  · 1 past A/B test summary (PDF)
Goal: increase trial signups from the homepage.
Run discovery + synthesis + hypotheses.
DO NOT generate HTML until I approve hypotheses.
Partial-data start · no analytics yet, work from qualitative only
Client LP for [Acme Corp] — early-stage engagement.
Materials attached:
  · Brand kit (PDF)
  · Current site URL
  · 8 sales-call transcripts (TXT)
  · 1 customer-research readout (Notion export)
No analytics available yet — flag this in the gap report.
Use qualitative-only synthesis. Mark every quantitative claim as an assumption.
Output insights.md + 2 hypotheses; await my approval before variants.
Hypothesis-only · we already have insights, just propose hypotheses
Client LP for [Acme Corp] — insights already done.
Source: insights.md (attached) from prior discovery work.
Propose 3 testable hypotheses, ranked by expected impact vs. evidence strength.
Each hypothesis must:
  · Cite specific evidence from insights.md
  · State the metric we expect to move and by how much
  · Be runnable as a single LP variant.
Variant generation · hypotheses approved, generate the HTML
Client LP for [Acme Corp] — hypotheses approved.
Approved hypotheses:
  · H1: Lead with outcome ("ship 3× faster") not capability
  · H2: Single CTA above the fold (currently three)
Generate one HTML variant per approved hypothesis, in Acme tokens (brand kit attached).
Each variant tagged with the hypothesis it tests.
Then emit instrumentation.md + dataLayer.json for the dev team.
Edge cases

What each agent refuses or routes elsewhere.

Internal · golden-rule guardrails
  • Template confusion (v8 vs v9 ambiguous in the brief) → agent asks before building. Never guesses.
  • Golden-rule conflict (e.g. user asks for full-viewport yellow banner, violating rule 2) → agent flags the rule and refuses unless explicitly overridden.
  • Section catalog exhausted (all fresh combinations used) → agent surfaces this and proposes expanding the catalog rather than reusing.
  • Custom copy that contradicts intelligaia.com voice ("Clarity in / Momentum out" type fabrications) → agent flags and proposes on-brand alternatives.
Client · evidence + brand guardrails
  • Insufficient analytics data (< 30 days) → agent flags, uses assumptions, marks them explicitly in insights.md.
  • Client brand rule conflicts with conversion best practice → agent surfaces both, asks the designer to mediate. Never silently overrides.
  • Client requests speculative variants without approving hypotheses → agent refuses and re-routes to the hypothesis stage. The gate is non-negotiable.
  • NDA on metrics → agent operates on qualitative insights only; instrumentation spec uses placeholder targets the client team fills in privately.
  • Client asks for "just copy a competitor's page" → agent refuses; explains why and re-routes to evidence-led hypotheses.
Success metrics

Targets at month 3. If these aren't met, the agent isn't working and we change it or retire it.

Internal targets
Time from brief to next ship-ready version
≤ 30 min
Each new version uses a section combination not in the last 3 versions
100%
Golden-rule violations per version
0
Client targets
Time from materials in hand to approved hypotheses
≤ 1 day (from 1 week)
Time from hypothesis approval to shipped variants
≤ 1 day
Hypothesis hit rate (variant beats control on the success metric)
≥ 50% by client #3
Insights doc accepted by client without major rework
≥ 80% of engagements
Repeat engagements (client returns for next LP within 6 months)
≥ 60%

Blog Posts — three AI tools in action

Drafts in the Intelligaia voice from a topic and optional source material. Hook, tension, POV, evidence, close.

Planning

Pure ChatGPT — setup walkthrough

Custom GPT seeded with our voice glossary, banned-filler list, and five reference posts. Drop a topic, a link, or some notes; the GPT returns a draft in our voice plus three title variants and a meta description. ChatGPT Plus, Pro, or Team required.

1
Open the GPT Builder

Sign in at chatgpt.com. Sidebar → Explore GPTs → top-right CreateConfigure tab.

2
Fill the Configure form
  • Name: Intelligaia Blog Posts
  • Description: "Drafts on-brand Intelligaia blog posts — title, hook, structure, POV, CTA — in our voice."
  • Instructions: Paste the SKILL.md for intelligaia-blog-post — voice glossary, structure (hook → tension → POV → 2–4 evidence sections → counter-position → action close), banned filler ("leverage", "seamless", "unlock", "at the end of the day"), output spec (3 title variants + meta description + hero illustration brief).
  • Conversation starters: Four — "Draft a POV post about [topic]", "Turn this talk into a post", "Write up our perspective on [trend]", "Convert these notes into a blog post".
  • Knowledge: Voice glossary + 5 best published posts in markdown.
  • Capabilities: Web Browsing on. DALL-E off — hero illustration handoff goes to Brand Graphics.
3
Save and share

Top-right Create. Sharing: Anyone with the link for the team. Pin to your sidebar.

4
Test it

Paste this brief and confirm the draft hits the voice, structure, and length:

Draft a 1200-word POV post titled
"Why agentic design needs a human in the loop."
Reader: design directors.
Source: notes from our last team retro.
CTA: book a consult.
Limit of this path. The GPT can't learn between runs. If the same paragraph-level rewrite keeps happening — cutting the 5-paragraph intro, swapping abstract claims for one concrete example — update the Instructions block.

Workflow details — once it's running

From the canonical spec · May 2026
Triggers

Phrases that load the agent automatically in a Claude session.

Draft a blog post about X Turn this talk into a post Write up our perspective on Y Convert these notes into a blog post
Intake

What the agent asks before generating, if missing from the brief.

  • Topic and angle — POV, how-we-do-it, response-to-trend, or case-study-flavored
  • Reader — designer, founder, engineering lead, design executive
  • Length — short (600–900 words), standard (1200–1800), or long (2500+)
  • Source material — notes, transcript, Slack thread, or none
  • CTA goal — book a consult, view a case study, follow the newsletter, or none
Output layout

Markdown post in Intelligaia voice — clear, opinionated, specific, no filler. Plus a small bundle of supporting artifacts.

HookOpening paragraph — gets to the POV by paragraph two, never later.
TensionWhat's commonly believed vs. what we think — the conflict the post resolves.
POVOur take, in one or two sentences. Specific, not vague. No "leverage", no "seamless".
Evidence × 2–4Each section: claim → specific example or number → implication. No abstract paragraphs.
Counter-positionThe strongest case against our POV, fairly stated, then answered.
Action closeWhat the reader should do next — book a consult, read a case study, follow.
+ Title × 3Three title variants for A/B selection.
+ Meta + heroMeta description, hero illustration brief (ready for Brand Graphics), internal link suggestions.
Prompt library

Four starter prompts — one per source-type. Swap the bracketed slots.

POV post · clear take on a debated topic, no source material
Draft a 1200-word POV post titled
"Why agentic design needs a human in the loop."
Angle: POV.
Reader: design directors.
Length: standard (1200–1800w).
Source material: none — write from the team's collective POV.
CTA: book a consult.
Talk to post · conference talk or panel session → article
Turn this 25-minute conference talk into a 1500-word post in our voice.
Talk title: [TITLE]. Speaker: Yogesh.
Angle: case-study-flavored — the talk walked through one engagement.
Reader: design executives.
Length: standard.
Source material: full talk transcript (attached).
CTA: view the related case study.
Transcript to post · long podcast / interview → article
Convert this 60-minute podcast transcript into a 1500-word post in our voice.
Angle: response-to-trend.
Reader: founders + engineering leads.
Length: standard.
Source material: full podcast transcript (attached, ~16k tokens).
CTA: follow the newsletter.
Note: prefer Gemini path for this one — long context.
Notes to post · loose internal notes → structured draft
Convert these notes from our last team retro into a 1000-word post.
Angle: how-we-do-it.
Reader: design directors at similar-sized firms.
Length: short.
Source material: notes (attached, bullet-form, ~2 pages).
CTA: book a consult.
Edge cases

What the agent refuses or routes elsewhere.

  • Customer-named post → agent fact-checks against the source case study; refuses to make claims not in the source material.
  • Trending topic with no internal POV yet → agent asks "what's our take?" and refuses to generate without one.
  • Co-authored post → once an author has three posts on file, the agent captures their by-author voice in a per-author addendum.
Success metrics

Targets at month 3. If these aren't met, the agent isn't working and we change it or retire it.

Time to publishable draft
≤ 30 min (from 3+ hr)
Drafts published with under 30% rewrite
≥ 60%
Senior reviewer tone-match rating
≥ 4 / 5 average

Case Studies — three AI tools in action

Portfolio writeups from project material. Hero, problem, approach in three stages, metrics, testimonial.

Planning

Pure ChatGPT — setup walkthrough

Custom GPT with the Intelligaia portfolio HTML template baked into Knowledge. Drop client materials (brief, screenshots, outcome notes); the GPT returns a portfolio-ready draft with NDA-aware outcome phrasing and screenshot crop suggestions. ChatGPT Plus, Pro, or Team required.

1
Open the GPT Builder

Sign in at chatgpt.com. Sidebar → Explore GPTs → top-right CreateConfigure tab.

2
Fill the Configure form
  • Name: Intelligaia Case Studies
  • Description: "Turns finished project material into a polished Intelligaia case study in the portfolio HTML style."
  • Instructions: Paste the SKILL.md for intelligaia-case-study — portfolio structure (hero + problem + approach in 3 stages + highlight screen + metrics + testimonial + next-engagement CTA), NDA outcome-phrasing rules, client-team crediting patterns, banned claims (never invent metrics, never overclaim).
  • Conversation starters: Four — "Case study for [client project]", "Write up the [client] engagement", "Turn these notes and screenshots into a case study", "Portfolio page for our work with [client]".
  • Knowledge: Intelligaia portfolio HTML template + 3 best published case studies + NDA phrasing guide.
  • Capabilities: Web Browsing optional. DALL-E off — screenshots come from the project file, never from generation.
3
Save and share

Top-right Create. Sharing: Anyone with the link for the team. Pin to your sidebar.

4
Pilot with one historic project

Pick a project that's already shipped (so you know the right answer) and re-write it. Compare against the actual published version to calibrate. Starter brief:

Case study for [client].
Sector: enterprise SaaS.
Problem: scaling design ops across 4 product lines.
Approach: shared design system + research ops pod.
Outcomes: 3× case study velocity, NDA on revenue impact.
Materials: 18 Figma screens + 2 client testimonials + outcome memo.
Limit of this path. The GPT can't learn between runs. NDA phrasings and client-team crediting patterns will need to be re-tightened in Instructions over time.

Workflow details — once it's running

From the canonical spec · May 2026
Triggers

Phrases that load the agent automatically in a Claude session.

Case study for [client] Write up the [client] engagement Turn these notes and screenshots into a case study Portfolio page for our work with [client]
Intake

What the agent asks before generating, if missing from the brief.

  • Client, sector, engagement type — named or anonymized; product, research, design system, audit
  • Problem — what the client came to us with
  • Approach — what we did, in three stages
  • Outcomes — metrics, qualitative impact, or future-pacing if metrics aren't in yet
  • Assets — Figma links, screenshots, research artifacts, testimonials
  • Confidentiality — named client, anonymized, or under NDA (drives the phrasing rules)
Output layout

Single HTML file in the Intelligaia portfolio style — ink-950 dark sections, cream type, yellow accent. Screenshots cropped and captioned. Mobile-responsive.

HeroClient name + one-line outcome. Sets the headline value of the engagement.
ProblemWhat the client came to us with. Specific, not "they needed better UX".
Approach × 3What we did, in three stages. Each stage has a name, a paragraph, and a screen.
Highlight screenOne hero screen, full-width, with caption.
MetricsQuantitative outcomes. NDA-redacted to qualitative framing where required.
TestimonialClient quote with attribution. Only if a real quote was supplied.
Next-engagement CTA"Working on something similar? Let's talk." — book a call link.
+ Social + metaSuggested LinkedIn / X copy, meta description, OG image brief.
Prompt library

Three starter prompts — covering the most common confidentiality and structure cases.

Standard case study · named client, full metrics, public-ready
Case study for [client].
Sector: enterprise SaaS.
Engagement: 12-week design system + 4-week pilot.
Problem: scaling design ops across 4 product lines.
Approach: shared design system + research ops pod + handoff pipeline.
Outcomes: 3× case study velocity, 40% reduction in handoff rework, 2 published modules.
Assets: 18 Figma screens + 2 client testimonials + outcome memo.
Confidentiality: named client, all metrics public.
NDA-redacted · qualitative framing, no invented metrics
Case study for [Fortune 500 telecom client, anonymized].
Sector: federal services.
Engagement: 8-week discovery + 16-week design.
Problem: workflow rationalization for a CTO-level team.
Approach: research synthesis + interaction model + handoff.
Outcomes: NDA on numbers — apply qualitative framing
   ("a measurable reduction in onboarding time", not invented %s).
Assets: 24 Figma screens + workshop recording + outcome memo.
Confidentiality: anonymized — use sector and role only.
Multi-phase engagement · several phases under one client
Case study for [client] — multi-phase engagement (Phase 1: discovery,
Phase 2: design system, Phase 3: pilot).
Ask up front: should this be one case study covering all three phases,
or a series of three linked case studies?
Sector: enterprise SaaS.
Total engagement: 9 months.
Assets: 40+ Figma screens, 3 outcome memos, 1 client testimonial covering all phases.
Confidentiality: named client, full metrics.
Edge cases

What the agent refuses or routes elsewhere — the NDA and crediting guardrails.

  • NDA'd metrics → agent refuses to invent or estimate; offers qualitative framing instead ("a measurable reduction in X", never invented numbers).
  • Protected client name or logo → agent uses sector and role only ("a Fortune 500 telecom CTO").
  • Multi-phase engagement → agent asks whether this is one case study or a series before drafting.
  • Promotion to gold folder → Neeraj reviews every promotion. No auto-promotion. Memory updates go through commit-skills-to-git.
Success metrics

Targets at month 3. If these aren't met, the agent isn't working and we change it or retire it.

Time to ship-ready case study
≤ 1 day (from 3–5 days)
Designer hours per case study
≤ 3 hr (from 12+)
Case studies published per quarter
≥ 4 (from 1–2)