Agentic AI training with Grace Clarke
The fastest path to a team that runs on agentic AI
Section one - how I work

Whether your team is making the shift from chatbot to agentic AI for the first time, or up-leveling from where you already are, the training is built on your real work. Most teams I work with are on Claude Desktop or ChatGPT Work, and there are two ways to work together:

The single session

Training, hackathon, and demo day in one session.

What we do

A half day or a full day, depending on what we need to achieve. Before the session, I design it around your team's real work and what you need it to do. We open with the fundamentals: chatbot vs. agentic, why delegation beats prompting. Then I lead and everyone builds on their own work, toward what matters to you. We set the numbers that tell you it's working, and close with a demo and an adoption plan.

Who it's for

Your full team, a select group, or leadership.

The longer engagement

For a team that wants AI built into how everyone works, not just a fast start.

What we do

I design the curriculum around how your team actually works. Everyone builds for their own role - skills, automations, connectors into the platforms you already run on. Everyone majors in their craft, minors in AI. We end with a demo day and a ritual on the calendar, so the team keeps building after I leave.

Who it's for

Your full team, a select group, or leadership.

This may be for you if
Scroll →

You're still using AI as a chatbot.

The team has been using AI like an ATM - you go to it when you need something. Nobody's built automations or custom connectors. You know there's more but don't know where to start.

You know AI should be driving impact - but you're too far from the work to know how.

Leaders can encourage, but the people doing the work are the ones who can identify what to automate - and you're not in the day-to-day anymore. That's not a flaw, it's altitude. My job is getting your team to surface and build exactly that.

You need to expand output, not headcount

You don't need more people - you need more business impact. You need every person to expand what they can do, and someone (me) to build AI into how you work - so the work compounds instead of evaporating.

AI needs to show up on the P&L

You're not interested in efficiency - "productivity theater" doesn't improve your business's health. You need an AI operating model to drive top and bottom-line impact.

You already did a training. Nothing's happening.

The blocker was never the tool - it's that nobody reimagined the workflows and nobody managed the change. A login is not leverage.

You're "advanced" - but are you?

Scheduled tasks are running, someone built some automations, and nobody's sure how any of it works or if it's set up right. Activity isn't the same as a system. We rebuild it so your team actually understands what's running and why.

You've got multiple AI tools and want to keep it that way

Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude - your team lands on different tools and you don't want to be boxed into one. I teach the way of working, so your team gets fluent wherever they already are.

Your exec team is excited, and the rest of the team is lost

Leadership can be a blocker. Pushing for "using AI" and sending around articles isn't going to get the result you want.

You have an enterprise contract and zero adoption

Procurement signed the contract, the seats are paid for. People open it, ask one question, and leave. You're burning cash and damaging morale.

You could do this yourself but have no time

You need someone to sit you down to teach and lead with expertise from having done this many times before.

This may not be the right fit if

  • You're looking for fractional AI leadership. I build, teach, and exit - because nobody outside your company should be accountable for how your team uses these tools. An embedded AI exec is a dependency, and dependency is the opposite of the outcome.
  • You want someone to build everything for you - every automation, every custom process. That's not a teacher, that's a platform engineer or another hire. I build a few things in support of long-term enablement, and your team builds the rest.
  • You need an AI roadmap. My output is your team's capability and curiosity, not a deck. (The models evolve so quickly, I don't know how to plan - and I don't trust anyone who says they do.)
My approach: I teach.

What you get is durable capability - a team that keeps building what the business needs, and gets more valuable the longer they do it. I believe using AI requires learning agentic AI through hands-on experience.

My goal is your team's fluency - not a deck or a roadmap. (Even Anthropic and OpenAI avoid roadmaps more than 60 days out - the models change too fast.)

If this sounds useful, tell me more below. I evaluate if we are a fit and if so, this becomes a brief for our project. It's basically kicking things off.

↓
Section two - the intake questionnaire

Your answers show me where your team is today, so we can create a plan that gets you where you need to be.

Ancillary benefit: your answers also become the "before" snapshot - at the end of our work, and months from now, you'll see exactly how far your team has grown.

I need to know the status of AI use today and where we'd be starting from.

Answers are usually something like, "Everyone is still using AI as a chatbot," "everyone picks their own tool and does their own thing," "we're all on one agentic platform but it's self-guided," "Everyone's pretty advanced and has automations running and custom MCPs." There's no wrong answer because I create your training from wherever your team is and where you need them to be.
This is the only way for an AI to read information from other platforms and bring it into your chats. It's also how AI takes action on your behalf - to be able to do things on these platforms.
The way AI gets discussed among employees is the way they end up using it.
"Organically" is the most common answer. One mid-level advocate can feel like a great energy change, but it fades, and I believe this starts with and requires practical support from leadership.
Tracking could be a dashboard, A/B testing AI vs. human content, or someone informally checking "did this save us time this month." "No" is a common answer here too.
If we can't answer this, the training becomes a workshop memory. I'd rather answer it now and build toward it.