Each night, review publicly released product changes and select only those users need to know. Verify each against the product, docs, or release notes. Use the Jellypod MCP to turn the approved changes into a three-to-five-minute podcast explaining what changed, why it matters, and how to try it. Check the script and audio for accuracy, clarity, and pronunciation. If nothing meaningful shipped, make no episode. Ask before publishing. Finish with the draft episode, sources, and review result.
claude-code · codex
Use this when
Use this when a product ships frequently enough that users would benefit from a short recurring audio explanation of what changed and how to use it.
How it runs
Collect the previous day's public product changes, documentation, and release notes.
Select the changes most meaningful to users and verify what actually shipped.
Use Jellypod to draft a three-to-five-minute episode covering the benefit and how to try each selected change.
Review the script and audio against the sources, regenerate weak passages, and request approval before publishing.
Done when
✓ The episode accurately covers every meaningful public update. Finish with a review-ready three-to-five-minute episode, or a confirmed no-episode result when nothing meaningful shipped.
Why it works
A fixed release window keeps coverage current, while editorial selection and source verification prevent the episode from becoming an automated reading of commit titles.
Implementation note
Use only publicly released information. Do not expose private repository context, customer data, security-sensitive details, or unreleased work in the generated episode.
Find a repeatable weekly post format for [approved account, audience, and topic] through a six-week experiment. If the account, audience, or topic is missing, ask for it before drafting. Obtain approval before publishing anything externally. Each week, draft one short post about a real problem [person, product, or company] solves. Record substantive replies, saves, and questions after the same measurement window. Treat likes as secondary evidence. Keep the audience, topic area, cadence, and measurement window comparable. Change only one meaningful element each week, such as the opening, format, example, or call to action, based on the strongest signal from the previous post. Stop when one format materially outperforms the alternatives, the six-week experiment ends without a winner, approval is withheld, required metrics are unavailable, or the budget is exhausted. Never fabricate engagement data. Finish with every post, its measurements, the variables tested, the winning format or no-winner result, and the next recommendation.
Research [question or topic] and produce a decision-ready [memo, brief, specification, recommendation, page, or other artifact] for [audience or decision]. If the question, audience, or intended artifact is missing, ask one focused question before starting. State the decision the artifact should support, its acceptance criteria, the allowed source scope, and the research budget. If no budget is supplied, use no more than ten strong sources or ninety minutes. Prefer current primary sources where available. After each research pass, update the artifact and identify the largest remaining evidence gap, contradiction, or uncertainty. Continue only if resolving it could materially change the decision and the budget allows another pass. Never invent evidence or hide uncertainty. Stop when the artifact meets its acceptance criteria, important claims trace to sources, and remaining uncertainty is explicit. Otherwise stop as blocked or exhausted. Finish with the completed artifact, sources, findings, tensions, confidence level, open questions, and recommended next step.
Before publishing [draft], inventory every factual, statistical, quoted, or attributed claim a reader could verify. Find the best current primary source for each and label it supported, outdated, misattributed, unsupported, or unverifiable. Fix the riskiest mismatch, then recheck that claim and anything depending on it. Repeat until no high-risk unsupported claim remains or five rounds are exhausted. Never invent a source, cite evidence that does not support the claim, or alter a quotation. Ask before changing a named person’s quote or a legal, medical, or financial statement. Stop without changes if there are no checkable claims; stop as blocked when adequate evidence is unavailable. Finish with the claim-to-source table, corrections made, unresolved claims, and decisions requiring an editor.