Home
© 2026 The Company Builder's Manual | Praxis | Marc Kleinmann.
This website uses cookies
Read our Privacy policy and Terms of use for more information.
Four ways in. Three of them teach you AI and differ only in how much structure you want and who is in the room with you. The fourth builds and runs workflows for you, and it sits on top of the other three rather than replacing them. Most companies that go far end up with both: people who know how to do this, plus a few workflows too big to hand a newly trained team. Start where you actually are. Nobody here writes code.
Six things, in every one of the three that teach. You build a workflow while you learn them because that is how they stay learned, but the workflow is the exercise and these are the point. Nobody writes code and none of this is tied to one vendor.
Telling work that is AI shaped from work that only looks like it. Most failed AI projects failed right here, before anyone wrote a single prompt.
Writing instructions that produce the same result twice. What context the model needs that you assumed was obvious, and what it does when it does not get it.
Models do not fail like software. They do not error, they invent. What to never hand one unchecked, and how to put the check inside the workflow instead of hoping.
Claude, ChatGPT, and the rest are not interchangeable, and neither are the cheap and expensive versions of each. Choosing on the job instead of on the brand.
Your inbox, your sheets, your CRM, your files. What runs on its own, what stops for a human, and how to decide which before it costs you.
Why a workflow nobody maintains dies around month three, what drift looks like a few weeks before it breaks, and what to do about it yourself.
Most people selling AI training blur this line. Stated plainly, because it decides what you should be paying for.
You learn AI well enough to judge it, instruct it, and catch it when it is wrong. Walk away tomorrow and the skill is still yours.
Every config, prompt, and workflow from a session is yours. No license and no lock.
We do not build your systems during training. That is priced separately, and you should not pay training rates for it.
No teaching format includes us running or maintaining anything. That is the build option, added on top rather than instead.
Teaching builds the capability. Having it built adds capacity. Two things happen constantly. Somebody learns this properly, builds three good workflows, and then hits one that spans four systems and is genuinely beyond a few months of practice. Or a busy owner wants both at once: the team trained so they handle their own everyday work, and us building the two load-bearing workflows the business actually runs on.
Trained people plus built systems is the strongest position on this page, not a contradiction. The credit is built for it: half of any private training fee credits against an install booked within 90 days.
Take the four weeks unless something stops you. People do not learn a skill by watching it once, they learn it by trying it badly and getting corrected, and the week between sessions is the only place that happens. Take the one sitting when the calendar is genuinely the constraint: a team too large to hold the same weekly slot, a seasonal window, or a group travelling in for it anyway. Wanting to be done sooner is not the same reason, and the month is only six hours of committed time against the full day's eight.
Both. Start free and read for a month. Spend $495 on a workshop seat to find out whether you like being taught this way, then take a cohort seat if you do. Train the team privately, then have us build the one workflow that turned out to be bigger than the team should take on, and half the training fee comes off it. Nothing here is a trapdoor and no step assumes the next one.
No. Nobody writes code. If you can describe how you do your job, you can do this.
Claude and ChatGPT for the model work, plus whatever you already run for the connecting. Choosing between them is itself one of the six things, so you leave able to judge the next tool that comes out rather than needing us to tell you.
Most of them teach prompts. Prompts are one of six things on the list, and on their own they produce a person who is good at chatting and still has no working automation. The other five are what separate a demo from something your business runs on.
No. The lessons are a program with an end date, built on your own work, and they teach you the six skills in order. The membership has no end date and runs on whatever the room brings that month, so you can start there and still take a cohort later.
Tell me what you are building and how big your team is. I read every one of these myself, and the reply says which of the four actually fits rather than which one costs the most.