Bond - The AI to-do list that does itself

@luz_bidelspach I wish I could drop some names here but i'll lose my SOC 2 type II certification...but:

1. One founder used Bond purely as a 'who am I neglecting' radar. It flagged that he hadn't talked to a key investor in 6 weeks, pulled the last thread, and drafted the re-intro. That dude is now leading his current round

2. Somebody uses Bond to manage his contractor renovating his house. Same chaos as a startup, apparently

3. One guy told me he let Bond draft his replies in his tone for so long that his cofounder said he's 'nicer over slack now.' ✨mediator✨

@andika_fadhilah Under the hood Bond scores everything on things like importance, urgency, and effort, then ranks from there. Urgency also decays and climbs over time, so something genuinely time-sensitive rises while a loud-but-pointless ping doesn't hijack your day.

It also classifies your todos across multiple frameworks (Eisenhower, GTD, and more), because everyone manages their work differently. Some people think in quadrants, some in next-actions, so Bond meets you in whatever system you already live in instead of forcing its own.

And yes, exactly what you're describing: you can feed Bond your priorities and goals (quarterly OKRs included), and it weighs tasks against what actually moves the needle for you, not just what's screaming loudest. That's the difference between a to-do list and a chief of staff. One sorts by deadline, the other sorts by impact.

@oleksii_sekundantIt's optional, Bond comes back to you with "hey, want me to handle this?" and you decide. For anything external, like sending an email, a Slack message, or a calendar invite, it always checks in first with an approval step before anything goes out.

For clearing the list itself, Bond can run more on its own auto-completing todos when the evidence is strong, and you set how strict that is with a confidence slider. A single todo can carry lots of little subtasks, so it's nice to leverage Bond where you can while keeping the final say where it matters.

Our moonshot is really this: you wake up to 10 todos, and Bond has already handled 8 of them. Clearing every todo for you is a genuinely exciting engineering challenge and it's exactly what we're building toward. 🔥

@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 🙏

@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 🚀

@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.

@elsa_williams Exactly 🙌 reducing context switching is one of the main reasons Bond exists.

We don't want you bouncing between all these noisy platforms, just to answer one question or move one task forward.
Bond reconstructs the context across those tools, shows you the relevant evidence, and then lets you act from the same place. Aka reply, follow up, schedule, delegate, or clear the todo.

We still keep the source one click away when you want to inspect the original thread or doc. But the ideal flow is: Bond brings the context to you, you make the call, and the action happens without opening five tabs. 🏎️

@emilia_novak Great question, Emilia 🌞

Bond doesn't just look at the task; it builds context around the people involved: who owns what, who has handled similar work before, who is already in the thread, and what the working relationship looks like across meetings, email, Slack, and docs.

That helps it suggest a the best person to delegate to, rather than just guessing from a title.

But the political judgment still stays with the human. Bond can surface the context and draft the handoff in the right tone, but the executive or chief of staff decides whether that assignment is appropriate. Our view is that AI should make the judgment easier, not pretend the nuance doesn't exist.

@sam_ruedinger Fair point. We're working on lowering that bar as much as possible. In the meantime, the setup is lighter than it looks, takes a few minutes, and starts surfacing value almost immediately. Happy to walk you through it personally if you want to see it work before committing.