I built CI for AI workflows so they stop rotting. Here is why, and the one wall I am hitting.

I run r/WebAfterAI, so every day I watch people post AI setups that look incredible and are quietly broken. I have lost whole evenings to a "10 AI workflows that will change your life" guide where the setup half-worked, then a flag got renamed or a model got pulled and the whole thing died. Nothing told me. The guide was a screenshot of something that worked once.

That is the problem I got tired of. The space runs on screenshots and trust, and AI tooling changes too fast for trust to mean anything.

So I built FlowStacks. It is a library of AI workflow recipes where CI actually re-runs each recipe's deterministic setup on every push and grades it. If a recipe breaks, the badge goes red. The badge is never faked.

The honest part is the whole point: CI only claims what it can prove, the config, the wiring, the structure. The step where a model thinks is fenced off as non-CI, because no green check can promise a model's judgement. I would rather ship a smaller true claim than a big fake one. Someone here called it "more like infrastructure than content," which is exactly how it feels to build.

Where it is after a few weeks: ~117 recipes, most machine-verified in real cloud CI, fed by r/WebAfterAI (12k+ members) and the WebAfterAI newsletter (325+). The metric I trust most is that the average session is over two minutes. The people who find it actually read it.

The wall I am hitting: the flywheel only really spins when tool authors submit and co-sign their own verified setup, and cold outreach to them is slow. So a genuine question for anyone who has shipped a dev tool: what would make you claim a "verified setup" page for your tool on someone else's site, and what would make you ignore the DM?

I will post an update here every week with the real numbers, what shipped, and what broke. Thanks for reading.