I'll be upfront about something that might feel strange to hear: if you've published a real methodology, there may already be a page for it on our platform. We built it. We did the research on your work. And right now it's sitting there as an informed placeholder, waiting to find out whether you want to make it real.
That probably sounds presumptuous. Let me explain why we do it this way, because the logic is the opposite of a land-grab.
Why we seed pages before we build skills
We can't build three hundred skills on spec and hope they find an audience. That's how you go broke making things nobody wants. So we do the cheap half first: we research a methodology, ground a page in its actual source material, and put it up. Then we watch.
The interest is the gate. Page views, email sign-ups, people asking when it's ready — that's the signal that tells us which methodologies deserve the full pipeline. We seed broadly and build narrowly, guided by demand rather than by our own guesses.
What "claiming" actually gets you
Here's where it stops being about us and starts being about you. If one of those pages is your methodology, you can claim it — and claiming isn't starting from a blank page. It's stepping onto a moving one.
When you claim, the work we've already done comes with it: the research brief, the source material we mapped, the early structure. You don't enter the pipeline at the beginning. You enter at the craft stage — the part where your actual judgment gets extracted — because the groundwork is already laid. The unglamorous front half is done. What's left is the part only you can give.
And there's a real signal attached, not a cold pitch. If your page has been collecting interest, that's not us flattering you — it's readers telling you, in advance, that they want your methodology applied to their work. You'd be building on demonstrated demand, which is a luxury most product launches never get.
We're not seeding everything
This isn't a scrape of every book ever written. A methodology only earns a seeded page if it passes a deliberately strict bar.
| The bar to be seeded | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Named methodology | there's a real, teachable system — not vibes |
| Known author | a specific person's judgment, not a genre |
| Source exists | enough material to extract faithfully |
| Not commoditised | the skill would beat what base AI already does |
That last line is the one I care about most. If an extracted skill would just say what a free chatbot already says, there's no point — for you or for the reader. We only seed methodologies where the judgment is real enough that capturing it produces something base AI can't. If your work is on a page, it's because we think it clears that bar. That's the compliment underneath the whole model.
The honest framing
So here's the choice, said plainly. We've done the research on your methodology because we think it's worth extracting. Readers may already be raising their hands for it. You can claim the page and work with us to turn it into a real, tested, IP-protected skill that earns for you — or you can leave it as an informed placeholder and let the interest sit there unmet.
There's no threat in that. Nobody's publishing your methodology without you — a seeded page is a research stub and an invitation, not a finished product. It's closer to a publisher saying "we've drawn up the outline and there's a queue forming; do you want to write the book?" The work is flattering by construction. We only built the page because the methodology earned it.
If you've ever wondered whether your life's work has a place in the AI era, this is the most concrete possible answer: it already has an address. The only open question is whether you want to move in.
Cheers, Adam