I run CI on AI workflows so they stop rotting. If you have one that works, I will verify it.

Most "AI workflow" guides are screenshots. You copy the setup, it half-works, and a few weeks later, a flag gets renamed, and the whole thing is dead. Nobody re-ran it.

I have been building FlowStacks (https://flowstacks.xyz) to deal with that: AI workflow recipes where CI re-runs each recipe's deterministic setup on every push and grades it. If a recipe breaks, the badge goes red. CI only claims what it can actually check: 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 judgment.

There are more than 100 verified recipes now, and most of them came from posts in my community. I would like to widen that, so here is a genuine open invite.

If you have an AI workflow you actually run, send it. If it passes verification:

It gets a recipe page on FlowStacks with the CI badge and your name on it as the builder.
Your tool gets a backlink from the open-source awesome-ai-workflows list on GitHub.
That part is for everyone whose recipe earns its badge. Nothing gated, no signup.

The strongest few get more than that: I feature them in the WebAfterAI newsletter (320+, thrice a week) and post them to r/WebAfterAI (11k+ members) from my account, which tends to travel further than a cold self-post(on average, my Reddit posts get 30-50K views per post). To be straight about it, that amplification is selective; the verified page and the backlink are not.

Building an open-source or AI tool yourself?
This is the same invite from the other side. A recipe that exercises your tool becomes a machine-checked "it works" page for it: proof that it runs today, re-checked on every push, instead of a screenshot from launch week or a star count that says nothing about whether the thing still installs. Your tool gets its own page on FlowStacks and a link from both the recipe and the awesome-ai-workflows list. If you would rather send people a page that keeps re-proving your tool works than a README that quietly went stale, that is what this does. It might also be genuinely useful for you: a third party verifying your setup reads very differently from your own docs.

Three ways to submit, whichever fits:

Open an issue (there is a "suggest a workflow" template): https://github.com/Neeeophytee/awesome-ai-workflows/issues/new/choose
Use the request form on the site: https://flowstacks.xyz/submit
Or just post it in r/WebAfterAI yourself. Anyone can. I run the strongest ones from my account because they get more eyes there, but the subreddit is open.

What makes something verifiable: a workflow with a deterministic spine we can check (a config that parses, a flag that must be present, a round-trip that returns a known fact).

If the repo is useful to you, a star genuinely helps the next person find it: github.com/Neeeophytee/awesome-ai-workflows. Only if it is useful.

I would start to post a build-in-public update here each week with the real numbers and what broke. Teardowns of the site are welcome, too.