Behind the curriculum
How I work with AI
Linda Vu Nguyen · VP Marketing, BlueRock
Every module teaches one piece of how I run my Marketing & GTM Hub. This is the whole picture: the 10 operating patterns underneath all of it, written from the Hub I actually run, not a tidied-up version.
They aren’t tools — tools come and go. They’re the durable habits that make the system compound. My intention is simple: by the end, you run something like this, shaped to your own work.
The Hub mindset
Your repo is your operating system, not a place to store files.
I do not have a "documents" folder. I have a Hub: a single repo where my context, my playbooks, my memory, and my work product all live in the same tree. When I open it in Cursor, Claude Code is not a chatbot I am consulting. It is an agent that already knows everything important about my work.
When the system knows you, every prompt is shorter and every output is sharper. The cost of "explaining yourself" goes to zero.
What it looks like
- CLAUDE.md at the root: my standing brief, loaded automatically every session
- Work organized by domain (strategy, content, product), not by date
- .claude/commands/ for my skills, .claude/agents/ for my specialists
- A memory/ folder for what the system has learned about how I work
Skills, not prompts
If I do something twice, I write a skill.
A skill is a markdown file that codifies a workflow. Once a skill exists, I never re-explain the workflow; I say the trigger word. /blog writes a blog post the way I want it written. /ship wraps up a session: updates the log, commits, pushes, generates a continuation prompt.
I have 40 skills. Every one of them replaced a paragraph of instructions I was tired of typing. One-off prompts are conversations. Skills are infrastructure. Infrastructure compounds.
What it looks like
- A folder under .claude/commands/<skill-name>/
- SKILL.md with frontmatter (name + description; the trigger phrases live inside the description) plus the actual instructions
- Optional references/ folder with supporting files
Markdown is memory
Context lives in files, not in the chat.
The AI does not remember. I give it memory by writing files. Every important decision, every preference, every fact about my team, every reusable insight lives in a .md file somewhere in the Hub. When I need it, I point at the file. When the system needs it, it loads automatically.
Conversations end. Files persist. If a piece of context only lives in my head or in last week’s chat, it does not exist.
What it looks like
- A memory/ folder with one file per topic, indexed by a MEMORY.md the system reads each session
- Persistent learnings: "no emojis, ever," "capture means commit," "verify the index before committing"
- Project context files that outlive any single conversation
Path-rules over global rules
Different rules belong in different folders.
I do not write one giant system prompt. I write small, specific rule files that only load when I am working in the relevant folder. The blog rules do not apply when I am in sales enablement. The sales rules do not apply when I am in DevRel.
Global rules become noise. Local rules stay sharp. A rule that only fires when it is relevant gets followed; a rule buried in a 5,000-word prompt gets ignored.
What it looks like
- .claude/rules/content.md applies to the content tree
- .claude/rules/sales.md applies to the sales tree
- Each rule file is short enough to actually be read
Async by default
What should be running while I sleep?
Most people use AI like a calculator: ask, answer, walk away. I use it like an employee: set the schedule, define the work, check the output. My morning brief lands at 7am. Industry scans happen overnight. Competitive sweeps run weekly.
Synchronous prompting caps at "what I can think to ask." Async agents extend my working day to 24 hours.
What it looks like
- Routines (created with /schedule): standing jobs that run in the cloud, laptop open or not
- A morning brief committed to my Hub before I open my laptop
- /loop for session-scoped recurring runs while I work
Parallel agents
When I need multiple perspectives, I dispatch multiple agents at once.
For competitive research, I do not ask one chat five questions sequentially. I dispatch five agents in parallel: each researches one competitor, in its own context window. Twenty minutes later I have five reports. Then I synthesize.
Sequential is slow. Parallel is bounded by my synthesis capacity, not my agent’s response time.
What it looks like
- Multiple specialists dispatched in a single message
- Persona reactor agents dispatched together for a focus-group pass on a draft
- Researcher agents running side by side while I do other work
Source fidelity
Every claim traces to a source. If I can’t cite it, I can’t say it.
When I draft derivative content, I never let the AI invent sharper claims than the source supports. The source is the ceiling. Amplify, never fabricate. I learned this the hard way: a single invented claim cost me a full blog rework.
Credibility compounds slowly and decays fast. One overclaim destroys ten true claims of trust.
What it looks like
- Source-fidelity rules baked into the content skills themselves
- The habit: when the AI writes a sharp line, ask "where does that come from?"
- In the seeded meeting-recap skill: "Numbers stay exact. Never guess inside the email."
Capture means commit
Decisions get logged, not just discussed.
When I make a decision in a planning session, "capture this" does not mean "remember it." It means edit the log, commit, push. Decisions that are not written down do not exist. Work that is not committed is one accident away from gone.
The repo makes work durable, but only if the work actually lands in it.
What it looks like
- A decisions log and a session log, updated as part of finishing work, not after
- A /ship skill that ends every session: update logs, commit, push
- The habit from M2: every work chunk ends in the Source Control panel
Verify before claiming done
"Working" means tested, not typechecked.
When code changes, I test in a browser before believing it works. When data updates, I verify the file is what I expect. When an agent reports completion, I check the actual output.
Confident-sounding wrong answers are the most expensive mistakes. The AI sounds confident regardless. I have to verify.
What it looks like
- Standing rule: report what was tested and the actual result, not what was attempted
- In M2: the "is it alive?" test before trusting your CLAUDE.md
- In M3: run the skill on a real input before calling it shipped
- In M4: read the dispatch result like an editor before trusting the specialist
- In M5: fire the routine manually before trusting the schedule
Iterative steering
Broad plan, redirect, narrow, ship.
I do not write detailed specs upfront. I ask for a broad recommendation, push back on what is off, narrow the scope, then build. Detailed specs at the start are guesses. Detailed specs after redirection are decisions.
This is also how every artifact in this curriculum gets built: you describe, the agent drafts, you steer, it refines.
What it looks like
- The pattern: "give me the plan" then "now tighten it" then "now ship the first piece"
- Meta-prompting in M3: sharpening questions are iterative steering in miniature
- The habit: ask "what’s the tradeoff?" before "let’s go"
The synthesis
The patterns reinforce
- The Hub mindset is the container. Markdown is memory is what fills it. Skills, not prompts is what activates it. Path-rules is how it stays organized.
- Async by default and parallel agents are how I scale my time.
- Source fidelity, capture means commit, and verify before claiming done are the discipline. Without discipline, the speed kills you.
- Iterative steering is how I learn what I actually want.
If you take one thing from this page: the AI does not make you faster by answering more prompts. It makes you faster by becoming part of a system you have designed. The system is the moat.
Put the patterns to work
The curriculum teaches each one where it becomes concrete.