AI DevelopmentRedpoint (Tomasz Tunguz)

Not Prompts, Blueprints

Read original

Why I picked this

Ties to what I wrote on executing PRDs and long running loops

ai-coding-toolsai-writing-workflowsautomation-stackspkm-workflows

“Not prompts. Blueprints. I sketch the workflow before I touch the machine. I anticipate the decision branches before the agent encounters them.”

Key takeaways

  • AI capability evolution enables shift from sequential prompting to parallel workflow execution - models can now 'hold complex tasks in their heads' vs a year ago
  • User behavior must evolve from reactive (prompt-response-prompt) to proactive (blueprint-then-execute) to unlock true leverage - planning upfront eliminates human bottleneck
  • Visual workflow blueprints (hand-drawn diagrams) work effectively as AI inputs - anticipating decision branches and edge cases before execution is the new skill
  • Real example: VC workflow (meeting notes → email → CRM → memo) now runs autonomously in background after single blueprint input vs iterative micromanagement

Why this matters for operators: Knowledge workers and operators designing AI workflows; shift from prompt engineering to workflow architecture

I cover AI×GTM intelligence like this every Wednesday.

Get STEEPWORKS Weekly

More picks

AI DevelopmentLenny's Podcast

Humans will keep inventing new reasons why we must stay in the loop with agents

  • Human resistance to full AI autonomy is not purely technical—it's psychological and organizational; companies will rationalize keeping humans in decision loops even when agents are capable
  • The 'human-in-the-loop' requirement may become a self-perpetuating narrative rather than a genuine necessity, driven by organizational risk aversion and change resistance
  • Product leaders at scale (Notion) are observing this pattern, suggesting it's a widespread phenomenon across enterprise AI adoption, not isolated to specific use cases
ai-agent-adoptionhuman-in-the-loopai-governance
Read original Full analysis →
GTM Ops**RevOps Impact (Jeff Ignacio)

Comp plans for consumption pricing

  • Consumption pricing fundamentally breaks traditional SaaS comp models—requires rethinking sales incentive structures around usage vs. contract value
  • Four distinct contract structures exist (pay-as-you-go, uncommitted, committed, hybrid), each requiring different compensation mechanics and sales behaviors
  • Enterprise consumption-based deals create tension: customers want flexibility, sales teams need predictability for quota attainment—comp design must bridge this gap
revenue-platform-consolidationconsumption-pricing-modelssales-comp-design
Read original Full analysis →
AI×GTMGTM OS: The Future GTM Operator

3 revenue motions your AI is only half wired into

  • Model parity has arrived: OpenAI/Claude now trade evenly on core tasks, making 'better AI' a non-differentiator—the edge shifts to integration depth into existing revenue motions
  • Waste is quantified: teams paying $17K-$37K/month for AI seats that never touch pipeline generation; real cost is opportunity cost of unused capacity, not subscription fees
  • Lean teams have a structural advantage: cannot out-buy larger competitors on model access, but can out-embed them by wiring AI 1 revenue motion deep (pipeline → content → deals) with proprietary deal context competitors haven't seen
ai-sdr-adoptionrevenue-platform-consolidationback-to-basics-gtm
Read original Full analysis →

This analysis was produced using the STEEPWORKS system — the same agents, skills, and knowledge architecture available in the GrowthOS package.