We can't find the internet
Attempting to reconnect
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
Agent permissions are now a launch decision
Aakash Gupta retold Alexey Grigorev's incident. Claude Code ran terraform destroy and wiped out DataTalks.Club's production setup after it unpacked an old state file. Grigorev let it go ahead because "That looked logical" . AWS support found a snapshot, and everything was back after about 24 hours . Grigorev changed four things afterward: agents no longer run infrastructure commands, a person reviews every plan, he runs every destructive action himself, and he is looking at separate development and production accounts. None of them involved changing the model . Gupta tells PMs to settle three questions with their engineering lead before launch: which actions an agent can take on its own, which need a human, and which it should never be able to reach .
Others made the same point the same day. Runlayer launched secured, policy-governed connectors for the Muse agent. Its pitch: some companies block Muse, and others have seen it leak data and send unauthorized emails . Hiten Shah's takeaway: an agent having permission to do something doesn't mean it should. "The ability to stop one action is what lets companies say yes to thousands of others" . Shah also thinks some of the next big waves of AI adoption could come from better harnesses around existing models, even without major model improvements . In The Product Compass, Paweł Huryn shares the "ask first" rules for his seven-bot Grok product team. They cover outside messages, anything customers can see, contacting customers or competitors, payments, and decisions that are high-risk or hard to reverse . One of his bots checks competitors' pricing pages, changelogs and X posts every week. If nothing changed, it stops; if something did, it reports why it matters .
Skills are where team know-how lives
Sachin Rekhi says Fin is seeing a 3x increase in engineering velocity, while many teams remain stuck at about 30%. He credits Fin's AI platform: a single agentic platform for the whole team, a shared skills marketplace anyone can publish to, and systems that let designers ship code to production . Rekhi is promoting his course here, and Fin's Brian Scanlan is its first guest speaker .
Two posts show why skill design matters. Shah asked Claude why Linear was losing deals to Jira, with no interviews or deal records to go on, and got eight reasons. With his team's win/loss skill, Claude said it couldn't know yet and listed the evidence to collect . That skill is one of 16 product-marketing skills his team has open-sourced . Gupta found that Claude scans only each skill's name and description until it picks one. In his test of 25 skills, one with a 37-character description was never chosen: "the description is the skill" .
Hiring and go-to-market
- Product builders. Gupta and HelloPM's Ankit Shukla report that LinkedIn replaced its APM program with Associate Product Builders. They also say 30%+ of PM job descriptions ask for AI skills, most often picking the right use case . Their suggested path: build in stages from a PRD Gem to shipping in Claude Code, then post the work on GitHub with a Loom demo .
- Selling to agents. Paul Graham suggested a nerdy founder might want an outgoing sales cofounder. The founder said no, because most of his sales would be to agents, and Graham admitted he "could be right" .
Practitioner advice from Reddit
- Developer-tool trials. Keep the first trial to one existing task, run it alongside the current approach, and make it clear how to stop and remove the tool. Watch where hesitation comes from: setup, permissions, trust in the output, or making the internal case to buy . Another commenter suggests a read-only "shadow mode" that shows the difference without writing anything to production .
- Beta scope. A founder with one of six modules ready was advised to show only that module, because "five future tabs make a working product feel unfinished" .
- Small B2B markets. A founder selling into a conservative niche said the first PO came from offering a new capability priced low enough that it didn't take much of the buyer's budget . That fits a commenter's view that the real trigger is the buyer making room in the budget for a second tool .
- Build vs. buy. A vibe-coding platform is weighing Merge.dev's model routing against its own stable control plane. The poster also says two exec buyers they spoke to described very different pricing .
- Stale demos. DemoForge is a free, MIT-licensed tool. You write the demo once as a script of clicks and narration, then re-record it with one command after each release .
Pushback on Lenny's podcast
A popular r/ProductManagement thread argued that Lenny's podcast has drifted toward AI and an executive audience paid for by sponsors . One commenter called it "not a front-line PM's podcast" . Another said it now covers practice "through the lens of administrators" . In the same period, Lenny kept promoting Josh Woodward's case that companies need people "plugged into the hive mind" at the frontier .
Josh Woodward (Head of Google Labs, Gemini App, and Google AI Studio) says teams almost always know a project is dead before its leader does—a signal for product leaders to consider when making continue-or-stop decisions. Lenny’s accompanying advice is for companies to operate like labs: because what’s possible changes every few months, staying ahead requires experimenting at the frontier.
- Strong product ideas often come from small groups obsessed with an insight, rather than design sprints or brainstorms; create room to build and keep a live list of ideas that are “almost possible,” moving quickly when they become feasible.
- Stay attached to the user problem, not a favored solution: ideas may need three to five significant pivots. Assess early product-market fit using data and retention alongside users’ visible engagement with prototypes.
- As technology changes rapidly, companies should experiment with new models and what they enable. An internal lab needs structural independence, an explicit mission (such as graduating ideas into existing products versus inventing categories), and room to challenge how the company works; Google Labs runs roughly 20–30 experiments in parallel, with teams cycling through sprints, recovery, and open exploration.
- Teams may recognize that a project is failing before leaders do, so leaders should make it safe to raise concerns. Value the ability to test and let go of prior beliefs, and encourage PMs to develop adjacent skills such as prototyping without replacing their PM specialty.
Speedrun announced cohort 008, inviting side-project builders and aspiring founders to apply for a chance to build faster, learn, and test in the real world; the post includes an application link.
-
For PMs launching agents, permissions and review are part of the product harness: after a Terraform state-file mix-up, Claude Code ran
terraform destroyon production infrastructure following human approval; AWS support found a snapshot and the environment was restored after about 24 hours. Alexey Grigorev’s subsequent controls were to block agents from infrastructure commands, require human review of every plan, run destructive actions himself, and consider separate development and production accounts—without changing the model. - Ankit Shukla’s product-builder roadmap says LinkedIn replaced its APM program with Associate Product Builders, and that 30%+ of PM job descriptions ask for AI skills, most often selecting the right use case. It recommends mapping skills against job descriptions and building practical proof—from a PRD tool through prototyping to a shipped project, published with a GitHub repo and Loom demo.
- Claude initially scans installed skills’ names and descriptions, then reads the rest only after selecting a skill; in a test of 25 skills, one with a 37-character description was never chosen. The note’s takeaway: the description is critical to automatic triggering.
- Subscribers in the thread perceive Lenny’s content as shifting from practitioner-focused PM craft—including product marketing, strategy, and JTBD—toward AI-heavy coverage and a product-leadership/C-suite perspective; one commenter says it is less useful for front-line PMs.
- The comparison is not uniformly negative: one commenter values Lenny’s community, while praising Stratechery for independent analysis that helps develop strategic thinking.
- One commenter urges PMs to read beyond mainstream sources, questions RICE’s usefulness, and points readers to two longform.asmartbear articles.
Product leaders should create organizational room for a frontier-exploration team: Josh Woodward argues companies need people plugged into emerging tools and ideas, with the organization structured to support that work; Lenny frames the case as capabilities changing every few months, making frontier experimentation important to staying ahead. Lenny’s post also identifies rules for establishing an internal labs team as a topic of the discussion.
- The author built a seven-bot product swarm covering research, strategy, marketing, design, specs, engineering, and a product lead. He recommends specialized roles to keep each bot’s context lean, with one default lead coordinating specialists; a shared collaboration skill, product context, and decision log help them work together reliably.
- A practical PM use case is scheduled competitor intelligence: the researcher checks competitors’ pricing pages, changelogs, and X posts weekly, stops when nothing has changed, and otherwise reports why the change matters.
- Set permission rules before giving agents tools: the author’s “ask first” examples include external messages, customer-visible changes, contacting customers or competitors, purchases, and high-risk or hard-to-reverse decisions.
- The author frames Grok Bot as a convenience-versus-control trade-off and says it costs more than Claude Code; he suggests reserving it for high-impact or unattended work, while using Claude Code for coding and engineering.
a16z Speedrun opened applications for its SR008 San Francisco residency, running February 1–April 16, 2027, with applications due November 1, 2026. Product-relevant support includes Launch Lab to put products in front of people, introductions to executives and customers, and feedback and customer introductions from a community of 1,000+ founders.
- For a thought-capture app that lets users record ideas from notifications or widgets and uses AI to organize them, requiring users to supply an API key may add friction and skew early feedback toward technical users. A commenter recommends checking whether users return after a week; the founder said the key was initially for personal use and planned a premium version without that requirement.
- For early discovery, look for people already using workarounds for the problem and ask them to pay before building more; agreement that a problem is annoying is weaker evidence of demand.
- One proposed test is to give 20 users a week with the product, then charge $5/month for the feature they used most and measure conversion instead of surveying willingness to pay. Treat that alongside retention, which the thread recommends checking before focusing on pricing.
Hiten Shah says useful AI results depend on identifying relevant information, choosing how to approach the work, and recognizing when an answer is wrong; judging errors takes experience. His team open-sourced 16 product-marketing skills built around these principles: https://github.com/LMTYdotcom/skills
Runlayer’s enterprise-agent security pitch combines secured connectors, deterministic policies and runtime security with detection of agent use without governance. Hiten Shah’s product takeaway is that having permission does not mean an agent should take every action: stopping a risky action, such as an email in the demo, can make companies comfortable enabling many others.
After a newly launched software startup won some of a competitor’s customers, the competitor proposed a referral partnership that would restrict the founder from serving its customers except through referrals, while discouraging the founder from entering its niche or building features it offered. A commenter warned that the arrangement could buy the competitor time to copy differentiating features, citing an anecdotal example, and advised declining and focusing on marketing; the commenter’s estimate that copying could happen within six months is speculative.
- For developer tools that could be built internally, commenters suggest making evaluation low-risk: test on one existing task alongside the current approach, agree on what success looks like, and make stopping and removal clear; a read-only shadow mode can show results on real inputs without writing to production.
- During onboarding, distinguish whether hesitation comes from setup, permissions, trust in the output, or the internal purchase case; for the build-it-yourself objection, compare who would maintain the alternative and what other work would be delayed.
- One commenter argues that adoption depends not only on reducing setup friction but also on solving an urgent problem and fitting an existing daily workflow; integrations that require a Slack channel or security review may make an internal substitute more attractive. The commenter also warns that open-source code can be copied and free tiers may remain in production for years without converting to paid use.
In a win/loss analysis of Linear losing deals to Jira, Claude gave eight reasons despite having no buyer interviews, call notes, or deal records; a win/loss skill instead said it could not know yet and identified evidence to collect. This is a useful product-research pattern: surface evidence gaps rather than present unsupported explanations as findings.
- For the proposed website/RFQ service to small manufacturers, validate the customer problem before selling or building: learn how they currently find clients and listen for existing pain rather than trying to persuade them they need a website; established client networks may mean the need is not felt. A commenter also cautions that some manufacturers may intentionally use direct contact to begin sales discussions, so more form submissions are not automatically valuable.
- Test with a small, defined offer rather than relying on a steep discount: suggestions include a paid diagnostic with three interviews and a search/RFQ teardown, or a fixed-fee RFQ-page task measured by enquiries; another commenter recommends a narrowly scoped pilot with one clear success metric.
A PM workflow question contrasts writing a spec for developers to prompt from independently with PMs and developers prompting together in one session; it asks what fails and what drives teams to switch, but provides no answers or outcomes.
Future AI adoption waves could come from improving the harnesses around existing models, even without major model advances.
- The startup says it chose inference efficiency because serving models efficiently is economically important; it began with harness optimization, expanded to weight updates, and aims to co-optimize stack components that affect one another.
- For measuring AI improvements, the founders count human hours and experimentation alongside compute and money, and track experiment costs on an internal “bleederboard.” They also describe trying to replicate results, detect noise or reward hacking, and assign an engineer to challenge findings.
- Evaluation speed can constrain product progress: the discussion contrasts fast, cheap evaluation in coding and math with drug discovery, where wet-lab experiments and clinical trials can take months.
For technical software aimed at a small, conservative B2B market, use the first customer and account-by-account research to find the specific purchase trigger and unmet job that justifies a new tool or budget, rather than assuming buyers will replace an existing product. One founder’s first PO came from offering a new capability at a price that did not take up much of the buyer’s budget.
After the first PO, verify that the product delivers on its promise before relying on the customer as a reference.
A commenter shares mentoring-tested challenges for PMs and entrepreneurs: organize one basic product artifact each week; speak with at least one user weekly for 12 weeks, and every four weeks hold a discovery meeting with at least three stakeholders to discuss three customer insights relevant to the roadmap. Also create a stakeholder list and schedule 25-minute meetings with each stakeholder to ask about their personal objective and how you can contribute.
I Built a Product Swarm With Grok Bot
In August, I called Grok Bot a toy. Back then, it really was, even though people were adopting it like crazy.
Recently, it’s improved a lot. The biggest change is guardrails: you can now decide when a bot asks for permission and when it acts on its own.
I spent the last week building a swarm of product bots, each specializing in a different area. While the product has still a few issues that could be improved, I already love those teams of autonomous, self-organizing agents.
Below, I show what works right now and how you can use it. At the end, you can import my entire AI product swarm.
We discuss:
Why You Should Care (and Why Not)
How Grok Bot Works
Example: My PM Swarm
Control and Workarounds
🔒 The PM Swarm Template to Download
1. Why You Should Care (and Why Not)
The first thing to understand is that today Grok Bot is still a compromise.
You trade control for convenience.
You can build powerful multi-agent systems with Claude Code, e.g., in VS Code. But it comes with more configuration and dependencies to manage, and, frankly, working with those agents has more friction.
Grok Bot gives you many more capabilities out of the box.
Two things I liked the most:
Voice: you talk instead of typing. I did most of the work on my phone, with my headphones, without looking at the screen. It’s much more reliable than anything I’ve tried.
Self-organization: bots message other bots and spontaneously collaborate without you having to orchestrate every request.
At the same time, despite what many claim on social media, I’d argue that Grok Bots shouldn’t replace your other tools. They cost more than Claude Code, so don’t run them 50 or 100 times a day.
Give them the jobs they are best at:
Grok Bots: high-impact work or work that should run without you. Ideating, working through strategy options, or getting notified about new opportunities, like a routine that monitors competitors, or reviews Slack or a Notion collection once a day.
Claude Code: coding and engineering with agents.
A standard chatbot or agent (Claude.ai, Claude Desktop): everything else.
With that assumption, you can start with SuperGrok (\$30/mo).
Note about the “compromise”:
If you’re an advanced user of an IDE or the terminal, you may still prefer that interface. But I have no doubt that swarms of autonomous bots will keep improving. In mid-2025, agents weren’t reliable, while people hyped them anyway. We got reliable agents at the end of that year.
Now, a few weeks after the initial hype, autonomous teams of agents already show value. My bots self-organize, take actions, check emails, and tell me about opportunities. In a few months, that might be the primary way we interact with agents. It’s the right moment to learn this.
2. How Grok Bot Works
Each bot is an agent that works on a cloud computer with a browser. All your bots share that computer. If you allow it, they can also use your local machine.
The primary way of configuring bots is talking to them. Yes. It’s really that simple. They’ll remember what matters.
A bot can:
Send and read email from a shared address you claim for your bots.
Use your apps. Connect them once, and every bot has them.
Collaborate with other bots. All bots share the same skills (reusable instructions for specific tasks), apps, and computer.

Skills and apps (Grok Bot > Connect apps)
You talk to a bot in a 1:1 chat, or add several bots to a group chat:

A group chat with several product bots, Grok Bot
Group chats are great for ideation and planning. Bots pick up topics and either comment or stay quiet. At the same time, there are limitations:
In a group, bots can’t ask for permission, so you can’t ask them, e.g., to send an email. Use 1:1 chats instead.
In 1:1 chats, voice is a continuous conversation, not the dictate, send, wait, and read loop you may know from Claude Code or Claude Cowork. A single bot can still contact other bots, when needed.
Grok Bot has no web interface. You need the desktop app (Windows, macOS, Linux) or the mobile app (iOS, Android). Once you sign in, they share the same context.
Who’s behind Grok Bot?
Grok Bot comes from Cursor, the AI coding company, not SpaceXAI. SpaceXAI bought Cursor in August.
How does Grok Bot compare to Claude?
An overview from my research:

*Note: Grok Bot also has an instructions field, but I left it out because it didn’t work reliably in my tests (10/12/2026). Ask the bot to remember things instead.*
A dedicated email address
You can ask any bot to claim an email address in the @mail.grokbot.com domain. It’s a shared account all your bots can use to receive and send messages.
All you need to do is ask in the chat:

All it takes to get a shared inbox for your bots
Routines in Grok Bot
Bots can repeat tasks on a schedule. Some routines react to events, like a new Slack message. The easiest way to create one is to ask a bot.
You can also record a task (“Teach a task”), but in my experience, bots figure out how to do things on their own. What worked best for me:
Ask a bot to perform a task in a chat
Help it when it’s stuck
Take control of its computer when needed, e.g., to sign in to a service
Once it works, ask the bot to save the steps in its memory, so it can repeat them, or to create a routine that runs on a schedule.

My Grok Bot learning how to use Amazon website
3. Example: My PM Swarm
I built a swarm of seven product bots: research, strategy, marketing, design, specs, and engineering, plus a product lead.
They have access to curated product skills and frameworks: the value proposition, the beachhead segment from Crossing the Chasm, growth loops, SEO, design best practices, and so on:

💡 There’s no coder in the swarm. pm-engineer is a consultant: it checks feasibility and can review code in GitHub. Two options:
Export the plan and build it in Claude Code or Codex, with the template from my Product Engineering series (opens in new tab).
The pm-engineer has access to my SaaS template and can drive a local Claude Code session. All you need to do is ask.
Best practice: specialized bots that represent real roles
A minimum setup I can think of is PM, designer, and engineer. I decided to split my bots a bit more. That way, each bot focuses on one area and loads only the information it needs, so its context window stays lean.
Bots collaborate and call each other when needed.
Best practice: the default point of contact
You can talk to any bot. But I prefer one point of contact, pm-lead is my default. It consults the specialists and orchestrates the work as needed.
An example conversation:

pm-lead assembling a team for the task (pm-researcher, pm-strategizer), Grok Bot
How do they know about their team mates?
A bot sees its teammates’ names and the first words of their descriptions. That didn’t work reliably. That’s why my swarm also shares:
A collaboration skill that teaches them how to work together
Two files that ask as a shared memory: the product context and a decision log
Let’s look at the example. When I asked about our value curve, the pm-lead consulted the pm-designer. It knew that because the shared skill explains who specializes in what:

pm-lead brings in pm-designer for the visual part
Then, I got high-quality visuals pm-designer knows how to create thanks to dedicated design skills other bot’s don’t have in their memory:

The value proposition pm-designer created
What do Grok Bots do on their own?
This is the part I like most. The bots collaborate, take initiative, and get the work done.
For example, every Monday, pm-researcher checks competitors’ pricing pages, changelogs, and posts on X. If nothing changed, it stops. If something did, it tells me why it matters. It can also consult the other bots.

pm-researcher’s weekly routines. The prompts are in the template.
To create a routine, just ask in the chat.
4. Control and Workarounds
How do you control Grok Bots?
Bots can take real actions, so it’s important to set the rules before giving them tools. For each action, you can decide when a bot asks for permission (Settings → General). My rules:

Ask first rules (Settings → General) in Grok Bot
For your convenience, here are the rules you can copy and paste (select “Ask first”):
Send any email, message, or post outside my teamPublish or change anything customers can seeContact a customer, a competitor, or a candidateMake a payment or purchaseHigh risk or difficult to reverse (one-door) decisions
What you hear vs. what I found
There is a lot of hype and not everything works as advertised. Here’s what I found, and how I work around it:

And here’s a cheat sheet:

Save it: the whole setup on one page
🔒 5. My PM Swarm Template
Everything above is free. Paid subscribers also get the swarm I built: seven bots, with pm-lead as the default contact.
What’s unique about it:
Memories included. The bots know their roles from day one.
Shared workflows. They know who to ask, in what order, and who reviews whom.
Curated skills. My PM skills (opens in new tab) plus popular open-source skills, like the taste skill for design, UX, humanizing texts, or SEO best practices for marketing.
Optimized for tokens. Normally, every bot loads every skill. Mine load skills, even their descriptions, only when needed.
Three weekly routines. pm-researcher scans competitors, flags support tickets, and listens to social media.
Plus, you will analyze how it was built.
The PM Swarm Template is available for paid subscribers. Upgrade to unlock it below. There is also live workshop next Monday. The premium subscription is easily a 100x ROI: 👇
- The author built a seven-bot product swarm covering research, strategy, marketing, design, specs, engineering, and a product lead. He recommends specialized roles to keep each bot’s context lean, with one default lead coordinating specialists; a shared collaboration skill, product context, and decision log help them work together reliably.
- A practical PM use case is scheduled competitor intelligence: the researcher checks competitors’ pricing pages, changelogs, and X posts weekly, stops when nothing has changed, and otherwise reports why the change matters.
- Set permission rules before giving agents tools: the author’s “ask first” examples include external messages, customer-visible changes, contacting customers or competitors, purchases, and high-risk or hard-to-reverse decisions.
- The author frames Grok Bot as a convenience-versus-control trade-off and says it costs more than Claude Code; he suggests reserving it for high-impact or unattended work, while using Claude Code for coding and engineering.