Automated Employee Onboarding — Google Workspace, Jira & Slack
Onboarding a new team member means touching at least three different tools. Most companies do it manually every single time. This removes that entirely.
Built an n8n workflow that triggers the moment a "Create User" form is submitted, instantly creates the new user in Google Workspace, then splits into two parallel paths checking whether the new hire is a manager or a regular member and creating the appropriate Jira account with the right permission level, while simultaneously creating their Slack account and updating their profile with the correct details.
New hire form submitted. Google account created. Jira access granted. Slack profile live. All before IT finishes their coffee.
AUTONIX is a modern AI automation SaaS website concept designed to help businesses streamline workflows, automate repetitive tasks, and manage AI agents more efficiently.
The design combines a clean, minimal interface with bold typography, futuristic visuals, interactive UI elements, and a seamless user experience. From AI-powered task automation to real-time productivity insights, every section is designed to communicate the value of intelligent automation in a clear and engaging way.
This project explores how thoughtful UI/UX design can make complex AI technology feel intuitive, accessible, and easy to use for modern businesses.
Same support inbox, one difference. Left keeps a human on every send. Right lets the AI send on its own once the draft confidence passes 90, refunds and cancellations excluded.
I built both in Relay this week and I still cannot decide.
Would you flip that switch for your own customers, and at what number?
I'd flip it per topic, not per score. A 90 on a question the AI has answered hundreds of times is safe. A 90 on a question it has never seen is still a guess. Can Relay set a different threshold per topic?
$15,000 from one browser game takes 1 to 15 million plays.
I did the math because my first web game, built with Claude Code, went live on CrazyGames today.
Bolt Pit is a Three.js arena shooter. It has earned $0 so far, because CrazyGames keeps ads off during the Basic Launch test, which runs until November 5.
Only games with good numbers get a Full Launch, and that's where the ad revenue share starts.
The formula:
Revenue = sessions × ads per session × eCPM ÷ 1,000 × your share
eCPM is what advertisers pay per 1,000 ads. CrazyGames allows at most one midgame ad every 3 minutes. The share isn't public, and reports range from 40% to 60%, so I used 50%. The rest are my assumptions, based on reported ad rates:
Low: 1 ad per session, $2 eCPM = $1 per 1,000 plays. You need 15 million plays.
Mid: 2 ads, $5 eCPM = $5 per 1,000 plays. You need 3 million plays.
High: 3 ads, $10 eCPM = $15 per 1,000 plays. You need 1 million plays.
One developer reported about €1.20 per 1,000 CrazyGames plays across eight older games. That's the low case, so I plan around the middle at best.
Is 3 million plays realistic?
CrazyGames reported 320 million play sessions a month this October. Poki says it has 100 million players a month. The players exist. Retention and session length decide which line you land on.
That's the bigger reason I'm here. I have Unity games in progress that were meant for the App Store. On the App Store, I'd only find out if people come back after paying for players.
So the new plan is web first, App Store later:
Launch on CrazyGames and Poki, where test players are free.
Tune retention and session length on real data.
If a game becomes a hit on the web, take it to the app stores.
Both portals' exclusivity rules cover only the web, so the app stores stay open.
I'm also skipping CrazyGames' exclusivity bonus. It pays 50% more for two months if your game stays off other web portals, and I want to test on Poki too.
Getting a Claude Code build accepted took six fixes, including a static build, relative paths, no Google Fonts and cutting the size from 20.5 MB to 12.4 MB. One known bug is still live: on landscape phones the start button sits below the fold.