Start here
The free tool below runs entirely in this browser — no account, nothing stored or transmitted. Redact anything you would not want kept before you type it.
Open the companion tool →Why a cadence beats a forecast
Nobody — including the people building these systems — can tell you which tasks in your specific job will change in the next year. What is checkable is that the systems changed materially in the last one, which makes a one-time assessment an increasingly outdated document.
A short quarterly review keeps you honest without a daily news habit: what tools arrived at work, what changed in your task list, and what you did about it. Thirty minutes four times a year is the whole commitment.
The protocol
- Put the next date in your calendar now, about three months out, with a repeating entry.
- At each cycle, list what changed: new tools at work, tasks that became templated, tasks that now need review, and anything a colleague handed over.
- Re-run the exposure map on your current task list rather than the previous one, and keep the older version to see the direction of travel.
- Choose one action for the next quarter: a task to own, a skill to practice, a conversation to have with your manager.
- Note what you decided and whether the last cycle's action happened. The record is what makes the habit real.
What the tool does
Build a quarterly recheck plan for your automation exposure: what to review, what to compare against last cycle, and one action to take. It runs in this browser; nothing is sent or stored.
Limit first: This is a planning aid, not a forecast about your job or your industry, and it takes no position on how AI development should be paced. It cannot tell you what will change — only when to look again.
Open the companion tool →One human next step
Book the first cycle now and tell one person — a manager or a mentor — what you plan to do with it. If a change at work removes part of your role, that conversation is the natural place to bring it.
Research log and safety checks
AI-assist path: not used for a verdict. §6.10 result: the topic survives translation — the article does not argue about pacing policy, it takes the checkable acceleration claim and converts it into a recheck cadence the reader controls. §4a-frontier: entries citing capability-acceleration claims carry a 30-day staleness window, applied here.
§0.5 protection result: category is job-skill-disruption; crisis-adjacent: no; fear/urgency/scarcity toolkit used: no. The protective function is free and the paid feature is convenience only.