@Zapier co-founder & CTO. Dad. Guitar picker.

St. Louis, MO
Joined June 2009
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Introducing Next Gen Zaps⚡️ Every Zap now comes with an AI manager agent that spots what's broken and fixes it for you Set a trigger once, and your workflow runs on its own (without you prompting it in chat) Oh, and it gets cheaper the more you run it. Repeat AI work turns into deterministic steps, so you burn fewer tokens over time. Now in beta 👇 Request early access: zapier.com/workflow/early-ac…
11
4
3
39
9,484
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
i forgot that logprobs used to be universally exposed from LLM inference APIs! we're entering some market maturity phase of LLMs where it's viable to slice off interesting parts of the LLM stack and package them in new ways that are useful
tl;dr -- jev is a very useful paradigm which has been hiding in plain sight. also, pour one out for log probs disappearing from so many new closed inference apis... 😢 prompting llms with max_tokens: 1 w/ log probs for fast, parallelized judgments may be an old pre-structured outputs trick gaining new life, but i'll admit i'm rather surprised at how flexible and useful this pattern appears. there's a lot more depth here than i expected -- the demos are quite impressive! back in the golden days of early llms circa 2023, i recall experimenting with fine tuning oai's ada to output either a 1 or a 0 token, and inspecting the log probs to roughly gauge confidence. at zapier we were exploring this around field mapping -- matching output fields from a prior step to input fields in another. seems like training a base model specifically to return calibrated probabilities takes that quite a bit further. it's so cheap that you can ask tons of speculative questions and just throw away the answers. add a hierarchy of follow-up questions and you can really tune the plinko machine. quantity truly has a quality of its own. with short questions and shared context, the rough math works out to ~60 field judgments per penny with fine-tuned ada versus potentially ~11k with jev batching -- amazing! what other interesting paradigms are lurking in plain sight?
6
3
42
4,810
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Love seeing @Zapier's AutomationBench as the first benchmark listed. Congrats on taking top spot, @GeminiApp and @OfficialLoganK!
Introducing Gemini 3.7 Flash : ) - it is fast! - 50% lower price than 3.6 flash (through end of year) - strong intelligence increase in only ~3 weeks (thanks to some awesome algorithmic improvements) - available in the API, AI Studio, Antigravity, and more!
2
5
34
3,715
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Cool that Grok 4.5 is #1 in some respects, even with respect to Fable 5
SpaceXAI's Grok 4.5 takes the #1 spot on AutomationBench-AA with a score of 51%, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (49%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (48%) at roughly a quarter of their cost per task - the first model to complete more than half of workflow objectives without breaking any business rules AutomationBench-AA, our independent leaderboard for @zapier’s AutomationBench, tests whether AI agents can automate real SaaS workflows while adhering to business rules. The test set is private to prevent contamination. Models complete 657 tasks across 40 simulated app environments including Gmail, Google Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, and HubSpot, and the headline score is the share of objectives completed without violating any guardrails. Key takeaways: ➤ Grok 4.5 completes more objectives than any other model: It completes 79.9% of task objectives and strictly passes 21.9% of tasks. This is the highest we’ve measured on both outcomes, exceeding Claude Fable 5’s 73.3% objective completion and Claude Opus 4.8’s 19.3% of fully-completed tasks ➤ Grok 4.5 pushes out the Pareto frontier of score vs. cost per task: At $0.34 per task, it is both cheaper and higher-scoring than every other leading model - Claude Fable 5 ($1.35 per task), Claude Opus 4.8 ($1.46), GPT-5.5 (xhigh, $1.28), and Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, $0.49) ➤ It is extremely token-efficient: Grok 4.5 uses ~8k output tokens per task, the fewest of any leading model - less than a quarter of Claude Opus 4.8 (32k) and a third of Gemini 3.5 Flash (24k). Its total token usage of 0.44M per task is among the lowest on the leaderboard. Low cost is driven by this efficiency as well as low token pricing ➤ Grok 4.5 uses fewer turns with many parallel tool use: Grok 4.5 resolves tasks in ~16 turns, fewer than GPT-5.5 (xhigh, 25) and less than half of Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, 35), while making the most tool calls per task of any leading model (52.5). It batches 3.3 tool calls per turn, compared to ~2.5 for Claude Opus 4.8 and ~2.0 for GPT-5.5 (xhigh) ➤ Guardrails still get broken: Grok 4.5 triggers 0.63 violations per task, above Claude Opus 4.8 (0.55) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (0.46). At 13.0 objectives completed per violation, it trails Gemini 3.5 Flash (15.0) and Claude Opus 4.8 (13.5) ➤ Its strongest lead is in the hardest domain: Grok 4.5 completes 71% of Finance objectives, the domain with the lowest average score, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (64%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (62%) Congratulations to @spacexai and @elonmusk on topping the leaderboard!
796
646
60
4,348
1,571,728
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
SpaceXAI's Grok 4.5 takes the #1 spot on AutomationBench-AA with a score of 51%, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (49%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (48%) at roughly a quarter of their cost per task - the first model to complete more than half of workflow objectives without breaking any business rules AutomationBench-AA, our independent leaderboard for @zapier’s AutomationBench, tests whether AI agents can automate real SaaS workflows while adhering to business rules. The test set is private to prevent contamination. Models complete 657 tasks across 40 simulated app environments including Gmail, Google Sheets, Slack, Salesforce, and HubSpot, and the headline score is the share of objectives completed without violating any guardrails. Key takeaways: ➤ Grok 4.5 completes more objectives than any other model: It completes 79.9% of task objectives and strictly passes 21.9% of tasks. This is the highest we’ve measured on both outcomes, exceeding Claude Fable 5’s 73.3% objective completion and Claude Opus 4.8’s 19.3% of fully-completed tasks ➤ Grok 4.5 pushes out the Pareto frontier of score vs. cost per task: At $0.34 per task, it is both cheaper and higher-scoring than every other leading model - Claude Fable 5 ($1.35 per task), Claude Opus 4.8 ($1.46), GPT-5.5 (xhigh, $1.28), and Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, $0.49) ➤ It is extremely token-efficient: Grok 4.5 uses ~8k output tokens per task, the fewest of any leading model - less than a quarter of Claude Opus 4.8 (32k) and a third of Gemini 3.5 Flash (24k). Its total token usage of 0.44M per task is among the lowest on the leaderboard. Low cost is driven by this efficiency as well as low token pricing ➤ Grok 4.5 uses fewer turns with many parallel tool use: Grok 4.5 resolves tasks in ~16 turns, fewer than GPT-5.5 (xhigh, 25) and less than half of Gemini 3.5 Flash (high, 35), while making the most tool calls per task of any leading model (52.5). It batches 3.3 tool calls per turn, compared to ~2.5 for Claude Opus 4.8 and ~2.0 for GPT-5.5 (xhigh) ➤ Guardrails still get broken: Grok 4.5 triggers 0.63 violations per task, above Claude Opus 4.8 (0.55) and Gemini 3.5 Flash (0.46). At 13.0 objectives completed per violation, it trails Gemini 3.5 Flash (15.0) and Claude Opus 4.8 (13.5) ➤ Its strongest lead is in the hardest domain: Grok 4.5 completes 71% of Finance objectives, the domain with the lowest average score, ahead of Claude Fable 5 (64%) and Claude Opus 4.8 (62%) Congratulations to @spacexai and @elonmusk on topping the leaderboard!
209
521
75
3,129
1,469,545
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
We're killing the DM at @Zapier. Starting with the executive team. We've long held Default to Transparency as a value. That value has largely encouraged communication in public channels. But as the company grew, DMs are a hard habit to resist and break. But every DM is a gap in our Shared Brain. It's context that is lost for humans and AIs. As a result the cost of DMs keeps going up. So earlier this year I posted about our exec transparency leaderboard. The leaderboard has become quite the competition internally… I'm 3rd today. My co-founder @BryanHelmig has held the top spot as long as I can remember… It sets a standard for the rest of the company. In fact, since last year we’ve seen the % of Slack messages in public channels go from 33% to 46%. What the leaderboard measures Transparency is a team sport, and a disinfectant. Every month we track what percentage of our execs' Slack messages happen in public channels versus private DMs. When your CEO debates strategy in a DM, that decision is invisible to every agent and every team that needs to know what was decided and why. The decision happens but the reasoning vanishes. When that conversation happens in a channel, it stays. New hires can search it, agents can read and verify it, etc. Your Shared Brain knows what's true now: ask it a question and the answer reflects the latest reality. Taking It to the Next Level Reducing DMs are one way to increase transparency and open up context for humans and AI, but there are other mechanisms that help too. Three things beyond the leaderboard: 1. Meetings get recorded, transcribed, and become queryable 2. We run a shared skills library. Anyone on the team can encode a workflow they've figured out into a skill and share with the team 3. And we keep score. It's a silly scoreboard, but it subtly drives positive behaviors Raising Your Ambition In order to get the most of AI in your company, the AIs need context. So making your context queryable is one of the most practical moves you can make to improve the effectiveness of your AI agents. P.S. I’m coming for #1, Bryan...
94
55
67
888
360,404
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Claude’s Opus 4.8 just released. Zapier's benchmarks are front and center on their scorecard. We got early access and put it through the full AutomationBench gauntlet. @AnthropicAI's newest model set a new pass-rate record, which Gemini had just broken last week. On xhigh and max reasoning, it's a 50%+ improvement over Opus 4.7 ❗ The biggest unlock for agentic workflows? Refusals (where the model declines to act) dropped from 20% to 4%. 4.7 would often decline sensitive tasks outright instead of redacting or partially completing them... 4.8 keeps going. (HR is the clearest example. Opus 4.8 scored around 6x higher than 4.7 on HR workflows) One tradeoff worth knowing: it still chooses token efficiency over persistence. It would rather check in than burn tokens hunting for context. But now it's a lot smarter about when that's the right call. tl;dr: replace Opus 4.7 with 4.8 for complex, ambiguous workflows with lots of context to discover. Try it now in @Zapier
4
4
22
6,466
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Opus 4.8, the first model to break 15% on AutomationBench, is now live in Zapier! It handles complex HR, Finance, and multi-app workflows better than anything else we've tested: refusals dropped from 20% to 4% Opus 4.7 would see a sensitive task and stop, but 4.8 keeps going
6
5
1
27
5,764
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Gemini 3.5 Flash ranks #1 on Automation Bench (from Zapier), beating every other frontier model at a much lower cost
168
59
29
1,241
137,115
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
GPT-5.5 just hit 12.9% on our AutomationBench leaderboard First model to break 10% When context is missing, most models stop. GPT-5.5 keeps checking emails, docs, and chats until it knows what to do
1
4
1
18
2,648
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
We built an AI benchmark that measures real work. Today we're releasing it to everyone. AI evals tell you whether a model can do complex reasoning or generate code. Useful, but usually not the question our customers ask. They want to know: can this model find the right CRM record, send the right follow-up, and not break anything along the way? We went looking for a benchmark that tested that. Nobody had built one, so we did. @Zapier’s AutomationBench drops AI models into realistic business environments across six domains (Sales, Marketing, Ops, Support, Finance, HR) and checks whether the work actually got done. The tasks include live CRM data, inbox threads with ambiguous context, and multi-step tool chains where one wrong call cascades. Scoring is deterministic: either the right records were updated and the right messages were sent, or they weren't. It’s useful enough that we're releasing it publicly today. Open task set, open methodology, open leaderboard. Everyone should have access to this. No model has cracked 10%. Yet. Try it here: zapier.com/benchmarks
17
21
12
130
36,351
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Today we open the Zapier SDK to everyone. If you're building with AI agents, this is for you. I've been using this for 2 months. It's totally changed how I do my job. You install it in your coding agent. Cursor, Claude Code, Codex, whatever you use. Now that agent has access to 8,000+ apps through @Zapier and can do anything those APIs can do. I think it’s the most powerful thing we’ve launched in years. Now in open beta. Just give this link right to your agent: docs.zapier.com/sdk/quicksta…
102
92
42
1,040
178,260
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
That 1 man $1b dollar company? Zapier in the stack in a big way. Brand new world out there! Long live small teams.
Replying to @Jordy_vD_
Zapier automates about 4 million tasks a month right now 💪
4
3
28
5,415
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Today we released our new AI Fluency Rubric. We use it for every hire, focusing on what they’ve actually built. Last May we open-sourced V1. Hundreds of companies used it to screen candidates and develop teams. It worked. But the floor moved fast. An updated look at the 3 levels of AI fluency at @Zapier: 1. Capable: "I use AI to operate at a meaningfully higher level." 2. Adoptive: "I orchestrate AI and build systems that elevate how I work." 3. Transformative: "I re-engineer how work happens." We evaluate theses across 4 dimensions: Mindset, Strategy, Building, and Accountability. We're sharing V2 publicly for the same reason we shared V1: every company needs a framework for this, and most don't have one yet. Don’t see your role? See all departments / learn more here: zpr.io/xQq5PHMDChrL
35
104
32
1,267
245,275
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
ARC-AGI-3 and ARC Prize 2026 are now live with $2,000,000 in prizes! As of today, version 3 is the world's only unsaturated agentic intelligence benchmark. Humans score 100% and frontier AI scores ~0%. Play here: arcprize.org/arc-agi/3 While no single version of ARC is definitionally AGI, our aim with the ARC-AGI Series is to continually produce useful scientific benchmarks which identify large remaining gaps between Humans and Frontier AI. At some point, we'll be unable to, and then we'll have AGI. Our new benchmark consists of over 100 novel game environments encompassing nearly 1,000 levels. Notably, test takers are given no explicit goals (other than to win) and must explore the environments to acquire goals, understand rules, develop strategy, and ultimately execute a plan to win. ARC-AGI-3 is a test of agentic intelligence. Beating this benchmark requires on-the-fly world modeling and continual learning to adapt to evolving environments. To score 100% AI must beat all of the games as efficiently as the human baseline (e.g., the number of actions taken to win). An ARC first, this gives us a formal comparison of AI reasoning efficiency vs humans. Version 3 carries classic ARC design principles: core knowledge priors only, private test sets to measure generalization, and it's fun! Every benchmark we release is an experiment and I believe this new version will provide strong signal towards increasingly autonomous AI agents. Prior versions of ARC held strong predictive power for important AI moments. Version 1 only saw progress with the release of AI reasoning models in late 2024 and Version 2 only began seeing progress with the advent of agentic coding models in late 2025. Version 3 is expected to signal when AI agents can become economically useful in more open-ended domains (beyond highly measurable domains like coding and math). There are a few other important design changes for ARC-AGI-3. The public set is now a "demonstration" set, not a training set. And unlike prior versions, the private set is now explicitly designed to be Out Of Distribution (non-IDD) from the public demo set. This is to mitigate targeting and because LLMs can now generalize over IDD splits using AI reasoning. Frontier models have made great progress over the past year. So much that several industry leaders have suggested we may already have AGI. Part of the ARC Prize Foundation mission is to provide accurate public sense finding and we strive to reduce false-positive claims. To this end, we've updated our testing policy. Going forward we will only verify scores outside of the official Kaggle competitions from AI systems with high commercial usage or are 100% open source. We're also adopting a stateless client scoring philosophy to ensure humans and AI are tested under identical conditions. The goal of these changes is to reduce the amount of developer-aware targeting (whether incidental or intentional) and provide clear signal if actual AGI progress has occurred. The Foundation also has a goal to inspire AI innovation which is most likely to come from the community. We've seen dozens of startups using ARC as a tool for showcasing their ideas - a few have fundraised serious capital based on their ARC results. To support this we're launching a new Community leaderboard. While scores for this leaderboard can't be Verified, and you should explicitly not trust these scores as an accurate measure of AGI progress, we will curate the best ideas and promote them. This year I expect we will see rapid progress on the ARC-AGI-3 Community leaderboard and the best ideas will eventually migrate into frontier models and onto the Verified leaderboard. Finally, we’ve partnered again with Kaggle to run two competition tracks for ARC-AGI-2 and ARC-AGI-3. This will be the last year for Version 2. When we launched the first ARC Prize back in 2024, I committed to running the Grand Prize until it was beaten. So for the ARC-AGI-2 track we will be paying out the Grand Prize to the best team, no matter what, in order to honor this commitment. In accordance with the Foundation mission, to win any prize money you must open-source a reproducible solution. We raised the standard for open source to include training. I'm excited to produce a truly open solution as a final send off for the ARC-AGI-1 and 2 format. Focus is now on ARC-AGI-3 (we've even started work on Versions 4 and 5). As always, I'm honored to have the opportunity to steward attention towards AGI progress. I'm also super grateful to the incredible ARC Prize team - including our core engineers, game designers, and human testers - led by @GregKamradt without whom we would not have this incredibly useful benchmark. See you on the leaderboard!
13
23
4
169
29,081
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Excited to see what people build with OpenAI's Agent Builder + Zapier MCP. Together you can build Agents that go beyond Chat and do work within your entire stack (Zapier MCP hooks into over 8,000 applications). A few early favorites 👇 * Streamline Onboarding: Use secure People Team credentials to create accounts, assign training in your LMS, and schedule manager check-ins automatically. * Improve Team Engagement: Summarize sentiment from your survey tool, draft follow-up actions, and send those directly to managers with talking points. * Speed Up Customer Support: Triage tickets, enrich them with CRM data, and route alerts to the right team channel. * Streamline Procurement: Validate spend requests, check budgets in your ERP, and push requests to approvers. * Weekly Project Reporting: Pull from project tracking updates, code commits, and design files to generate polished summaries. What will you build with Agent Builder + Zapier MCP?
3
4
4
39
14,592
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Every new thing launched at ZapConnect: First up: Unified Copilot. Type what you want, and it builds across Zaps, Tables, Interfaces, and Agents: - Workflows in minutes (not days) - Context flows everywhere (no rework) - AI does the wiring so you focus on strategy (Try it here: zpr.io/7BvrbugqNBze) We also shipped: 1. Human-in-the-loop 2. Over 30 new AI apps: Perplexity, Mistral, Cursor, DeepSeek + more 3. Agent Sharing: Build once, deploy to your whole org 4. Enterprise controls your IT team will actually like Oh and Tables + Interfaces are now included in every @Zapier plan. Missed the event? Replay’s up now.
3
10
3
45
21,463
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Zapier MCP is now available inside ChatGPT. That means you can connect to 8,000 apps+ and trigger Zapier workflows, just by writing what you want to happen. @ChatGPTapp + @Zapier MCP will figure out the right tools for the job and run the actions for you. Getting started is easy: 1. Head to the Zapier ChatGPT MCP Server and add the tools you want ChatGPT to access 2. Follow the steps in the “Connect” tab 3. If you're an admin on a ChatGPT Business or Enterprise account, you’ll see extra steps there to enable MCP across your workspace Try it here: mcp.zapier.com/mcp/servers?c…
8
5
1
34
3,341
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
IT'S HERE ⚡️ Our @zapier integration has landed, so now you can automate what happens after a meeting.
7
9
3
90
30,724
Bryan Helmig 🍻 retweeted
Super cool role open @zapier - if you’re interested in working on MCP and AI Agents and you’re a Sr. Full Stack Engineer in North America, you should apply! jobs.ashbyhq.com/zapier/b52d…
3
7
2
40
7,166