Send the intended change in ordinary words and identify the source format. A description is enough for an initial inquiry. Include what must stay unchanged, especially meaning that could be lost when a passage is shortened or moved.
Offer 03 / Local workflows
Local browser workflows start with a chosen input.
Moxby discusses local browser workflows for teams that need to prepare working material before using it elsewhere. Choose the document first. Describe the result a person needs to review, including any point where a website or external service enters the work.
Inquiry basisIndividual scope per requested local workflow and environment, confirmed after review. No published rate or binding quote. Any later commercial proposal uses USD; this website does not take payment.
Moxby / Austin, Texas, United States
Local describes a working boundary. It does not establish offline operation, encryption or the absence of external processing.
The offer / A bounded scenario
Local workflows
Bring one repeatable preparation job to the discussion. Perhaps a selected working document needs a different structure before someone reviews it. The useful starting point is not “automate my computer.” It is the exact material the workflow should read and the result the person should inspect.
This offer concerns the local-workflow side of the Moxby browser assistant. The environment, access permissions and requested behaviour need confirmation before a scope can be agreed. Selecting this area in the setup builder also selects Browser assistant so that boundary is not missed.
It suits a team that can name the person responsible for the source and the person deciding whether the output is fit to use. Those may be the same person. The request need not include a shared workspace unless there is shared context to connect.
- Requested input
- One deliberately selected source, with its ownership and permitted use understood.
- Requested output
- A separate result that can be compared with the source before being used.
- External boundary
- Every website or service that may receive source material, derived content or a request.
- Commercial scope
- Confirmed per workflow and environment after review, not calculated from the number of steps shown.
01 / Input selection
Choose a source, not a whole folder.
Describe a source by its role and format in the first inquiry. Do not attach the working document or send a private file-sharing link.
The input is part of the specification. “Use the latest document” leaves too much undecided.
Say how the person recognises the correct source. Is it a copy they select deliberately, or does another application produce it? If several revisions can exist at once, identify what makes one revision authoritative. A local workflow cannot be sensibly discussed while “latest” means different things to different people.
Keep the first example small enough to inspect. A short invented passage with the same headings as the real document can reveal the preparation rule without exposing customer records. Preserve the awkward structure that causes the work; remove the identifying content.
Then define the permitted reach. Reading a selected document is different from watching a directory or accessing other open tabs. A request for the first does not authorise the others. Moxby does not infer broad device access from a local-workflow inquiry.
02 / Worked preparation example
Turn a working note into a review draft.
Consider a request to reorganise a selected note under named headings. Stop before publishing it.
The source contains a short description of a task followed by loose observations. The requested result groups those observations under the headings supplied by the person. Content that does not clearly belong under a heading stays marked for review; it is not silently discarded or filled in.
This is a preparation example. It does not establish that Moxby performs document transformation today, supports a particular format or uses any particular processing service. It shows the level of specificity needed to check feasibility and permissions without asking for private material.
The review question is concrete: can the person account for every source passage in the proposed draft? Attractive formatting is not enough. A missing qualification can change what a task asks someone to do, even when the resulting text reads well.
If the desired next step is to place the draft into a website, keep that as a separate action request. Identify the receiving site and the review point. Do not hide a network transfer inside the word “prepare.” The Website actions offer owns that next boundary.
Illustrative request / Not a product test
- Input
- A deliberately selected, non-sensitive copy of a working note. Its section headings and paragraph boundaries remain visible in the sample.
- Preparation rule
- Arrange existing passages under headings chosen by the person. Flag passages that do not fit. Do not invent missing decisions.
- Output
- A separate review draft. The requested scope leaves the source untouched and makes uncertainty visible to the reviewer.
- External connection
- No destination is assumed. Ask whether processing itself needs a service and whether any resulting text will later be sent to a website.
- Stopping condition
- Stop at the draft for human inspection. Saving over the original or submitting text elsewhere is outside this example.
- A
Describe the preparation
- B
Check the environment
The browser context and local permission requirements need review alongside any external processing. An acceptable sample does not prove that the same work is feasible on a managed device with different access rules.
- C
Agree a boundary
A later scope must distinguish the preparation from saving or sending the result. The initial inquiry does not establish availability, a delivery date or a price. Commercial terms follow the reviewed scope rather than the apparent simplicity of the example.
- D
Keep a review criterion
State what the person would compare before accepting an output. If the check cannot be described, narrow the requested transformation. “Looks right” is not a reliable test for a document whose exceptions matter.
03 / Output inspection
A changed document is not an accepted document.
Give the reviewer an explicit decision, not a vague success message.
For local workflow software, output shape matters as much as the input. Say whether the person expects a draft to read, a file to inspect or text to place elsewhere. Those are requested destinations, not interchangeable delivery mechanisms. Each brings a different permission question.
Compare the result against the source while the source is still available. In the preparation example, the reviewer checks that every observation remains represented and that uncertain passages have not become firm instructions. A reorganisation can change emphasis even when no sentence is deliberately removed.
Decide what should happen when review fails. A useful request says to leave the result unaccepted and return to the source, rather than repeating the same operation until something looks plausible. Repetition can obscure which result the reviewer is actually looking at.
04 / Environment and connections
Local does not mean disconnected.
A task can begin on your device and still involve external processing. Ask where the material goes.
A browser page may depend on a remote service. A local input may be passed to a processing provider. A reviewed output may later be sent to another website. Calling the overall scenario local does not answer any of those questions, and it is not a claim of encryption or privacy by itself.
Give the environment as plain text in the setup request. Name the browser and operating environment you use without treating either as confirmed support. If the device is managed, describe the relevant restriction rather than forwarding policy documents or account details.
- Where does the source live?
- A locally selected copy and a document viewed through a network service are different starting points. Explain which one you mean; no private path or access link is needed.
- Who controls permission?
- Say whether you can authorise the requested access or need an administrator to decide. Your ability to open a document is not automatically permission to process it elsewhere.
- What leaves the device?
- Identify any proposed external service and the information it would need. If that is unknown, mark it as a question to resolve rather than assuming no transmission occurs.
- What is the working limit?
- Distinguish a visible, person-initiated preparation step from background monitoring or unattended work. Those require separate consideration under the browser assistant scope.
- What makes the output usable?
- Describe the comparison a reviewer can perform and the destination after acceptance. A need to overwrite, publish or submit changes the request and must be stated explicitly.
Fit and limits
A narrow job is a better starting point.
Local browser workflows are discussed around the work, not an assumed list of compatible devices.
Need offline-only processing?
Make that a requirement in the inquiry. Local does not establish offline availability, and Moxby does not present this offer as an offline-only product. An external-processing restriction may rule out the proposed scenario; it needs checking before an offer is agreed.
Need an unattended batch job?
This is not a promise to run work without a person present. Describe why the job must be unattended and what could go wrong if the source changes mid-run. Do not assume the person-led preparation example extends to watching folders or continuously reading browser activity.
Already have a workspace?
You can discuss the browser-side request without asking to replace it. In the builder, keep Team workspace only when you also want to discuss shared conversation and document context. Local workflows brings Browser assistant into the selection because the environment boundary still matters.
Only have a rough example?
A plain-language before-and-after description is useful. Leave sensitive material out. The setup request process explains how to prepare a non-sensitive example and how a discussion differs from an agreed scope.
Your requested workflow
Start with the input you can name.
Choose Local workflows in the option sheet. Add the environment you use and identify any external connection you already know about. The resulting inquiry is editable through those choices and asks for review, not payment.