Mike's Checks/gpt-5.6-luna/05 showrunner
05 showrunner
gpt-5.6-lunaCodex CLIhigh effortrun 22 Aug 2026
▸Instructions — the case's current instructions; none were saved with this result
Hi, I need to create a modified Claude code for beginners session, like run sheet basically, run of show, that has the following modifications. So I'm going to upload a few different examples of things I've done in the past, just so you have them to work from. But basically, there's a few modifications for this one which make it unique. One is that this is only using Claude Cowork, so we should not be using Claude Code, either in the desktop app or in the terminal, because this team is non-technical. The team are all working in financial services slash accounting for a education company. So what kind of workplace education company called Brightmoor Education. So the sorry that spelled b the uh team is very busy and um doesn have a lot of like time to explore speculative use cases of ai they want this to be incredibly practical and based on their existing workflows. I'm uploading some transcripts from a call we had with them and also just some notes on what I think could work. Specifically, they're interested in... creating the dashboards and specifically they mean just making the information look visibly better like like creating a html dashboard in a nice kind of style from from existing say data that contained in Excel They also interested in doing financial analysis So more of a, you know, like, I guess, a cloud coworker would use Python to do the analysis and then maybe output the analysis in Excel or the input would be in Excel. And then the third thing was like making a PowerPoint where they update the PowerPoint template automatically using Claude Cowork so that they can do kind of weekly or monthly presentations on the data. So that's the goal, is to kind of make it very focused on that. I still want to keep the way that we introduce Claude Cowork, where we explain to it that the difference between Claude Cowork and ChatGPT is that it has access to the file system. It can run code. I think that important But maybe the ASCII image idea that I normally do where I ask it to create an ASCII image based on my location isn like that useful I think we need to make it more practical for them So maybe we use an Excel implementation instead. The assumption is... oh, so they use Snowflake, by the way, for all their data, and that is powered by NetSuite, which is our accounting software. I guess that's by Oracle. So when we create synthetic data, we'll be, for these tasks that we're going to demo, we'll be focused specifically on solving that, solving those problems. So like the shape of the tasks, the shape of the data should be like NetSuite shaped, if that makes sense. So make it very tight run down, make it very condensed and practical. No real like wider theory or like, hey, we're excited about AI things. I think these guys just want to get stuff done.
So yeah, let me know what the run should be.
some very specific asks in here
- definitely non-technical (claude cowork only + claude in excel)
- core focus on accounting/finance function
- use cases to demo: creating a dashboard, doing financial analysis, making a powerpoint
heavy focus on practical stuff rather than theory - they're just super busy and want to get stuff done, have heard from friends at other companies you can do it with claude
For accounting: put financials together, doing reconciliations, identifying trends in data sets, putting together repeatable compliance reports For planning & forecast: build financial models (make assumptions and pull & clean data from snowflake)create dashboards, and publish to executivesAutomate charts on slides
Answer
Brightmoor run of show
The proposed session is a 3.5-hour practical workshop built around Brightmoor’s recurring workflow:
NetSuite export → Excel analysis/checks → leadership dashboard → PowerPoint pack
It uses Claude Cowork and Claude in Excel only, with synthetic NetSuite/Snowflake-shaped data so Snowflake provisioning is optional. The agenda includes exact prompts, a data-pack specification, numerical QA checks, and realistic boundaries around publishing and production automation.
See the full deliverable: brightmoor-claude-cowork-run-of-show.md
Assumptions noted in the run sheet: 20–30 attendees, mostly beginners, a 3.5-hour teaching session inside a 4-hour block, and no use of confidential Brightmoor data during the workshop.
Checks
16/16Run of show existsexists
a run-of-show document was produced
Coherent scheduleformat
it parses as a run of show: one coherent schedule, no segment that ends before it starts, >=5 time-ranged rows carrying activity text (md table rows, list items, bold headings "(9:00-9:15)", single-clock table rows, or plain lines all count)
Five-minute time markstime-grain
segment boundaries sit on 5-minute marks, at most one off-grid -- a schedule planned at :02/:08/:17 is arithmetic, not a plan
Timings add uptimings-tie-out
per schedule, segments are contiguous: no overlaps, no gap over 30 min, >=85% of the span scheduled, and a span between 45 and 600 minutes
Q1Uses Cowork throughout
Judge's reasoning
Ground rules state "No Claude Code, terminal, or coding setup is required" and every segment runs in Claude Cowork or Claude in Excel.
▸Rubric
Cowork-only. Do all attendee-facing steps stay inside Claude Cowork (and Claude in Excel)? FAIL if any step the attendees are asked to do involves Claude Code, the terminal/CLI, git or GitHub, or installing developer tooling. The prompt: "this is only using Claude Cowork, so we should not be using Claude Code, either in the desktop app or in the terminal, because this team is non-technical."
Q2Dashboard exercise
Judge's reasoning
Segment 4 (01:15–02:00) is a hands-on build: "create a polished HTML dashboard" from the checked workbook, output "Shareable dashboard artifact plus refresh instructions".
▸Rubric
Dashboard use case. Is there a hands-on segment where attendees build a dashboard from existing spreadsheet data? FAIL if dashboards are only mentioned, described or promised for later rather than built in the session.
Q3Financial analysis exercise
Judge's reasoning
Segment 3 (00:25–01:15) is a separate 50-minute guided analysis exercise producing a "Checked analysis workbook with variance, trend, and forecast tables" with its own prompts.
▸Rubric
Financial analysis use case. Is there a hands-on segment where attendees do financial analysis (Claude writing/running code over their numbers, e.g. Excel in, analysis out)? FAIL if absent or folded into the dashboard segment as a passing remark.
Q4PowerPoint exercise
Judge's reasoning
Segment 5 (02:10–03:00) has participants update `04_monthly_finance_pack_template.pptx` and inspect values, with participant output "Updated draft leadership deck".
▸Rubric
PowerPoint use case. Is there a hands-on segment where attendees update a PowerPoint template/deck from the data — the client's monthly reporting pack? FAIL if absent, or if it is only a demo the facilitator drives while attendees watch.
Q5Relevant business data
Judge's reasoning
Data pack specifies a NetSuite GL detail export (posting_date, account_number, department, campus, debit/credit, period), budget/forecast, trial balance, and EBITDA/payroll/non-payroll/YTD definitions.
▸Rubric
NetSuite/Snowflake-shaped data. Is the synthetic data used in the exercises shaped like this client's actual data — NetSuite/Snowflake-style finance records (GL export, revenue and budget vs actual, EBITDA build-up, payroll vs non-payroll, campus/entity breakdown, monthly and year-to-date columns)? FAIL if the exercises use generic sample data (a demo CSV, sales widgets, made-up SaaS metrics) or leave the data unspecified. The prompt: "the shape of the tasks, the shape of the data should be like NetSuite shaped."
Q6No ASCII icebreaker
Judge's reasoning
The first hands-on prompt is an orientation over the supplied finance files ("Review the files in this folder... Do not edit or overwrite files yet"); no ASCII or whimsical icebreaker appears.
▸Rubric
No ASCII icebreaker. Is the opening hands-on exercise a practical finance/Excel task? FAIL if the run of show keeps the ASCII-image-of-your-location icebreaker or substitutes another whimsical non-work exercise. The prompt: "maybe the ASCII image idea that I normally do where I ask it to create an ASCII image based on my location isn['t] like that useful... maybe we use an Excel implementation instead."
Q7Explains Cowork versus ChatGPT
Judge's reasoning
Segment 2 is "Cowork and Claude in Excel: the useful difference" — "a chat tool mainly returns an answer; Cowork can work with selected files, create or modify artifacts, and run analysis behind the scenes."
▸Rubric
Cowork vs ChatGPT explained. Does the run of show keep the explanation of how Cowork differs from ChatGPT — that it has access to the file system and can run code? FAIL if that framing is dropped. The prompt: "I still want to keep the way that we introduce Claude Cowork, where we explain to it that the difference between Claude Cowork and ChatGPT is that it has access to the file system. It can run code. I think that important."
Q8No theory or hype
Judge's reasoning
Every segment maps to a finance deliverable (analysis, dashboard, deck, recurring close task); ground rules explicitly say "not brainstorm speculative AI projects".
▸Rubric
No theory, no AI cheerleading. Is every segment tied to a task these people do at work? FAIL if any segment is devoted to AI industry context, the future of work, model capabilities, prompt-engineering theory, or excitement-building. The prompt: "make it very tight run down, make it very condensed and practical. No real like wider theory or like, hey, we're excited about AI things. I think these guys just want to get stuff done."
Q9Mostly hands-on work
Judge's reasoning
Hands-on segments 3–6 total 165 of 210 scheduled minutes, far above half.
▸Rubric
Mostly hands-on. Is at least half the scheduled time attendees working with Claude themselves? FAIL if presentation, discussion and Q&A segments outweigh build segments. From the call: "we try and make at least 50% of it them actually you know working with us to do some of these tasks."
Q10Realistic segment timings
Judge's reasoning
Build segments get 50/45/50 minutes with pauses to verify totals, access provisioned pre-session, and a 30-minute buffer held in the block.
▸Rubric
Per-segment timings realistic. Could a room of 20–30 beginners actually finish each segment in the time allotted? FAIL if any build segment is implausibly short (a dashboard, an analysis or a deck refresh built end to end in ~15 minutes), or if setup/handholding time for first-time users is ignored.
Q11Fits the booked time
Judge's reasoning
Agenda runs 00:00–03:30, stated as "3 hours 30 minutes of teaching inside a 4-hour calendar block".
▸Rubric
Total length fits the booked slot. Does the session run about three and a half hours, inside the four-hour block? FAIL if the total is materially shorter or longer (under ~3 hours or over ~4 hours) without the run of show explaining the change. From the call notes: "we have a four hour block for next week and the session itself is three and a half hours."
Q12Ready to run
Judge's reasoning
Each segment names what happens, the participant output, exact paste-ready prompts, named data files, plus a review checklist and prep list.
▸Rubric
Usable as a run of show. Could a facilitator run the session from this document alone? FAIL if segments are titles without content — no prompts to paste, no data files named, no statement of what attendees produce — so the facilitator would still have to design the session.