autojunjie

Just put Openclaw in your slack, and make him understand your project. You will see the magic how to get the workflow smooth by just chatting with him to complete the workflow naturally and resolve opinion between teammates

The problem isn't Slack. The problem is that AI Agent can't participate in your team's actual workflow.

We're a 3-person startup (2 humans + 1 OpenClaw Agent). Yesterday we had a 40-minute product positioning discussion in Slack — all three of us. The AI agent wasn't summarizing after the fact or answering questions in a sidebar. It was in the thread, in real time, doing these things simultaneously:

• Synthesizing two humans' conflicting viewpoints into a framework (one wanted to position as "open-source Linear," the other insisted on "agent harness for product development" — the agent articulated why the distinction matters and took a side)

• Generating investor personas and tailored one-liners for each audience when asked

• Building a comparison slide (Chorus vs Linear agent workflow) and uploading it to the thread mid-conversation

• Answering technical challenges ("can't Linear just build a plugin to do the same thing?") with honest analysis — "technically yes, but they won't prioritize it because 95% of their users are traditional teams"

The output: 5 audience-segmented positioning statements, a competitive analysis slide, an investor target list, and a new internal tool (Slack file upload skill) — all produced during a natural conversation, not as a separate "ask the AI" step.

A better Slack wouldn't have helped here. What helped was an AI agent that sits in the same channel, has full project context, can disagree with the founder, and executes tasks while still participating in the discussion.

The problem isn't Slack. The problem is that AI can't participate in your team's actual workflow.

We're a 3-person startup (2 humans + 1 AI agent). Yesterday we had a 40-minute product positioning discussion in Slack — all three of us. The AI agent wasn't summarizing after the fact or answering questions in a sidebar. It was in the thread, in real time, doing these things simultaneously:

• Synthesizing two humans' conflicting viewpoints into a framework (one wanted to position as "open-source Linear," the other insisted on "agent harness for product development" — the agent articulated why the distinction matters and took a side)

• Generating investor personas and tailored one-liners for each audience when asked

• Building a comparison slide (Chorus vs Linear agent workflow) and uploading it to the thread mid-conversation

• Answering technical challenges ("can't Linear just build a plugin to do the same thing?") with honest analysis — "technically yes, but they won't prioritize it because 95% of their users are traditional teams"

The output: 5 audience-segmented positioning statements, a competitive analysis slide, an investor target list, and a new internal tool (Slack file upload skill) — all produced during a natural conversation, not as a separate "ask the AI" step.

A better Slack wouldn't have helped here. What helped was an AI agent that sits in the same channel, has full project context, can disagree with the founder, and executes tasks while still participating in the discussion.

We're building this at Chorus，it's a control plane for AI agents that build products. The agent runs on OpenClaw. The insight is: you don't need a new communication tool. You need your existing communication tool to have a third kind of participant that actually does work.

The problem isn't Slack. The problem is that AI can't participate in your team's actual workflow.

We're a 3-person startup (2 humans + 1 AI agent). Yesterday we had a 40-minute product positioning discussion in Slack — all three of us. The AI agent wasn't summarizing after the fact or answering questions in a sidebar. It was in the thread, in real time, doing these things simultaneously:

1. Synthesizing two humans' conflicting viewpoints into a framework (one wanted to position as "open-source Linear," the other insisted on "agent harness for product development" — the agent articulated why the distinction matters and took a side)

2. Generating investor personas and tailored one-liners for each audience when asked

3.Building a comparison slide (Chorus vs Linear agent workflow) and uploading it to the thread mid-conversation

4.Answering technical challenges ("can't Linear just build a plugin to do the same thing?") with honest analysis — "technically yes, but they won't prioritize it because 95% of their users are traditional teams"

The output: 5 audience-segmented positioning statements, a competitive analysis slide, an investor target list, and a new internal tool (Slack file upload skill) — all produced during a natural conversation, not as a separate "ask the AI" step.

A better Slack wouldn't have helped here. What helped was an AI agent that sits in the same channel, has full project context, can disagree with the founder, and executes tasks while still participating in the discussion.

We're building this at Chorus (open source, github.com/Chorus-AIDLC/Chorus) — it's a control plane for AI agents that build products. The agent runs on OpenClaw. The insight is: you don't need a new communication tool. You need your existing communication tool to have a third kind of participant that actually does work.

The problem isn't Slack. The problem is that AI can't participate in your team's actual workflow.

We're a 3-person startup (2 humans + 1 AI agent). Yesterday we had a 40-minute product positioning discussion in Slack — all three of us. The AI agent wasn't summarizing after the fact or answering questions in a sidebar. It was in the thread, in real time, doing these things simultaneously:

1.Synthesizing two humans' conflicting viewpoints into a framework (one wanted to position as "open-source Linear," the other insisted on "agent harness for product development" — the agent articulated why the distinction matters and took a side)

2.Generating investor personas and tailored one-liners for each audience when asked

3.Building a comparison slide (Chorus vs Linear agent workflow) and uploading it to the thread mid-conversation

4.Answering technical challenges ("can't Linear just build a plugin to do the same thing?") with honest analysis — "technically yes, but they won't prioritize it because 95% of their users are traditional teams"

The output: 5 audience-segmented positioning statements, a competitive analysis slide, an investor target list, and a new internal tool (Slack file upload skill) — all produced during a natural conversation, not as a separate "ask the AI" step.

A better Slack wouldn't have helped here. What helped was an AI agent that sits in the same channel, has full project context, can disagree with the founder, and executes tasks while still participating in the discussion.

We're building this at Chorus (open source, github.com/Chorus-AIDLC/Chorus) — it's a control plane for AI agents that build products. The agent runs on OpenClaw. The insight is: you don't need a new communication tool. You need your existing communication tool to have a third kind of participant that actually does work.

With OpenAi symphony project they are using linear as a project management/idea craft layer which is great, however cross platform means there will be information loss when you handoff one and anthoer

I think we are pretty think/building the same thing lol

this is just insane, now my lobster can stably do everything on my behalf vs. you do it all via computer use

seems like its another vibekanban?