Agentic workflows in Claude
Agentic workflows in Claude: give it the job, not the question
An agentic workflow means giving Claude a job instead of a question. You describe the outcome, and Claude researches, drafts, checks its own work and uses your connected tools along the way, running the whole sequence rather than answering once and waiting.
In our workshop, people in operations, marketing and finance learn to phrase these jobs, to connect the sources Claude needs, and to know when to stop it and look. Recurring, multi-step work becomes something you launch and then review.
The difference between a question and a job
A question gets an answer. A job gets a process: Claude splits it into steps, decides what to check first, backtracks when something does not add up, and reports what it did. You define the goal and the limits, not every move along the way.
It works best on jobs with a clear shape and a lot of manual effort, such as a market scan, a meeting pack, or reconciling two reports. It works less well where the judgment has never been written down, so half the learning is choosing the right jobs.
Who comes, and what they bring
Attendees come from operations, marketing, finance, HR and project management, anyone with recurring work that runs through several steps. No technical background is needed. You need a job you know well and get tired of repeating every month.
Everyone arrives with one example from the past week: a report assembled by hand, a newsletter, a supplier check. We work on that example throughout, so there is something you can run the week after.
What the workshop covers
We begin by writing a job: the goal, the sources, the shape of the result and when to stop. Then we connect what Claude needs, files, documents and systems through connectors, and watch how it uses them.
The most important part is checking. You learn to have Claude test itself against the requirements, flag what it could not verify, and leave you approval points before anything leaves the organization. All on your own material, in Hebrew or English.
Where automation stalls
The usual failure is a job that is too big with a vague brief. Claude finishes and hands back something convincing, and nobody knows whether it is right. Teams that skip the checking step find the mistake at the customer.
You leave with a job template that works, rules of thumb for a sensible job size, and a short routine for reviewing results. That is what separates a one-off experiment from a process the team trusts.
Practice a full job
In the full course you build multi-step jobs and learn to check them. Sign-in is required to enter.