The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Back to feedPost
Problem: Small teams lose hours every week to copy-paste work — moving data between tools, chasing updates, and doing the same manual steps again and again. Build: With my service One AI Automation Built for You — $150, one fixed price — I build one automation for you in n8n, Make or Zapier, wired into the tools you already use, tested end to end, and handed over with a short walkthrough so your team can run it. Result: One repetitive task runs itself, every time, without the manual work. No calls needed. We work async, in text. What is the one task you would automate first if it ran itself?
one automation that runs every day beats ten half built ones
The network for creativity
Join 1.25M professional creatives like you
Connect with clients, get discovered, and run your business 100% commission-free
Creatives on Contra have earned over $150M and we are just getting started
Related posts
Before: one manual workflow runs your week. Copying data between tools, chasing follow-ups, rebuilding the same report by hand.
After: the same workflow runs itself.
Problem: founders lose their best hours to work a machine should do, and every handover adds another manual step.
Build: in a 1-week Automation Sprint, I map the workflow, build one automation with n8n and OpenAI, and ship it with a runbook and handover.
Result: the workflow runs without you, and you keep the runbook. A $350 fixed-price sprint, one automation live.
Which manual workflow would you automate first?
Your GoHighLevel automations are running right now.
Do you actually know what's in them?
Agencies build workflows fast. A client asks for a follow-up sequence, you duplicate an old one, tweak it, ship it. Six months later there are 125 workflows in the sub-account, half of them drafts nobody remembers, and two with the exact same name, so nobody's sure which one is live.
That's how leads get the same message twice. Or none at all.
So I built Automation Guardian.
It connects to a HighLevel sub-account, reads every workflow, and gives you:
→ A health score for the whole account
→ Findings ranked by severity, most urgent first
→ A plain-English explanation of each issue, written by AI, plus the business impact and how to fix it
→ A shareable audit report you can hand to a client
On a real test account it audited 125 workflows in under a second.
And the part I care about most: it's read-only. It never edits, publishes or deletes anything in your HighLevel account. Tokens are encrypted. You stay in control and make every change yourself.
I'm also honest about what it can't see. When HighLevel doesn't share the data a check needs, the report says "Not checked" instead of pretending it passed.
It's launching on the HighLevel Marketplace soon, with a free plan.
If you run a GHL agency and want early access, comment "AUDIT" or send me a DM. 👇
#GoHighLevel #HighLevel #MarketingAutomation #AgencyOwners #SaaS #BuildInPublic #AI
Reporting "Not checked" instead of a pass is the detail that would make me trust the score. Two workflows with the same name is exactly how double sends happen in email platforms too. Does it flag workflows that share a trigger, even when the names are different?
From Manual Follow-Up Chasing to an Agent-Run Follow-Up Queue
Before / After: follow-ups, from manual chasing to an agent-run queue
Before: every follow-up lived in someone's memory. The founder checked the inbox, guessed who was waiting, and sent reminders by hand. Leads went quiet not because they said no, but because nobody followed up in time.
After: an agent now runs the follow-up queue. Each lead has a next step and a due date, drafts wait for review, and every reply is logged with its source. The founder reviews the queue once, approves, and moves on.
What changed was not the tool. It was the handoff: one clear owner for each step, a runbook anyone can follow, and a log anyone can audit.
If follow-ups are the bottleneck, fix the handoff first — then automate it.
"Fix the handoff first" is the part most teams skip. I see the same thing in email automation: a flow nobody owns keeps firing to the wrong segment for months because no one is checking the log. When the founder is away, who approves the drafts waiting in the queue?