Bond - The AI to-do list that does itself

@diego_joaquin1 Love this engineering question, it's the thing we obsess over.

We're basically filtering smartly through all the noise, and as a company grows, Bond does more filtering, not more pinging. There are only so many important todos you can do in a day, so our goal is to surface the ones that have the biggest impact and those that best align with your personal and company goals.

@ding_hao Definitely augmentation.
A lot of our users actually are chiefs of staff, they're brilliant, but also quite expensive...
Bond takes the heavy, repetitive layer off their plate (tracking what's slipping, surfacing blockers, drafting routine follow-ups) so they can spend their time on the high-judgment work that actually needs a human.

So it works alongside existing EA and chief-of-staff workflows, not instead of them, the human stays in the driver's seat and keeps the final say. 🏎️
Our moonshot is for Bond to clear more and more of the routine load over time, while the person running it always controls how much.
Personally, I'll always believe in empowering people with AI, not replacing them. 🌞

@chris_davis23 Great question, the way we think about it: every integration Bond connects to helps build a richer picture of your company.
Notion is a great example. Bond reads your pages and tables and treats them as context about projects, owners, statuses, and decisions. So a task or update living in a Notion table becomes something Bond can understand, link back to as evidence, and connect to the right people and projects.

Each source adds a layer:
- email and Slack show what's happening in real time,
- calendar and meetings show what's being decided,
- Notion shows how the company organizes its work.

Thanks for the question 🙏

@chris_davis23 Ha, Notion sprawl is its own special kind of pain. Beautifully organized for the person who built it, totally unnavigable for everyone else.

Bond connects to Notion (pages and database rows) and treats it as just another signal source feeding the company brain. The point isn't to make you navigate those tables better, it's that you don't navigate them at all. Instead of "which of these 40 databases has the thing I need," you just ask Bond, and it pulls the answer and links it to the right project and people.

So a buried decision in some nested doc, or a status field three databases deep, becomes something Bond can surface in context rather than something you have to remember exists. The overload becomes signal instead of a place you dread opening.

@dominic_cruz Great question, Dominic, this is a line we think about a lot.

Bond is designed around the executive's existing workflow, not employee surveillance. It works from the context the executive already has access to and turns that into better follow-through. The goal isn't "watch what everyone is doing"; it's "help me remember what I owe people, who or what is blocked, and where a follow-up would be useful."

A big part of that is how Bond presents information: evidence-backed, task-focused, and action-oriented. It should surface "this customer launch is waiting on a decision" rather than "Alex hasn't replied in 36 hours."

Used well, it reduces micromanagement because follow-ups become clearer, more contextual, and less reactive.

The standard we hold ourselves to is: Bond should make teams feel better supported, not more watched.
Hope this helps 🙏

@elijah_smith6 Really sharp question, there's two parts:

1. First, a lot of what feels "undocumented" actually is captured somewhere, just scattered. The gut-feel call you made in a Slack DM, the aside in an email, the "let's just go with X" moment in a meeting transcript. That informal layer is exactly where Bond lives, so it picks up signals that never made it into a doc or a ticket. The decision didn't get written down formally, but it left a trace, and Bond connects that trace to what comes next.

2. Second, for the stuff that's truly only in your head, you can just tell Bond. A quick "I've decided we're pausing the X launch" and it factors that into what it surfaces from then on, no formal process required. It remembers across conversations, so you say it once.
   

What it won't do is pretend to read your mind. It can't infer a decision you've made zero signal about anywhere. But the bet is that far more of executive "gut feel" is observable than people assume, it's just buried in the noise.

@gilad_uziely Vamosss! Thankss Gilad 🤩

@elena_fischer1 Perfect question, Elena. It's actually both. 🤩

Bond builds a personal model around each executive: your priorities, responsibilities, communication patterns, and what you tend to delegate.
But it also builds a shared organizational picture: who owns what, which projects matter, where decisions live, and how work moves across the company.

So one leader gets a sharper personal assistant, but when a leadership team uses Bond collectively, the system gets a much better map of out the whole organization 🚀

@kseniya_avtukhovich Heyy Kseniya 🌞

Yes, it works for individual contributors too 🚀.

Execs are the sharpest initial wedge because their context-switching and delegation load is extreme, but the underlying problem is broader: too much work spread across too many threads, and not enough context when you need to act.

For an IC, Bond is useful in a slightly different way: reconstructing the context around a task, finding the source thread, surfacing what changed, drafting follow-ups, and helping you keep track of all the little commitments that get buried in Slack/email/meetings.

So the product is especially strong for execs and chiefs of staff today, but the long-term vision is absolutely broader: anyone whose work depends on staying on top of many moving pieces should benefit.