Use cases
One brain. Every job you throw at it.
Browse, ask, capture, compare, write, save, reuse. No copy-paste jungle, no lost tabs, no forgotten answers.
Research library
Close the tab. Keep the knowledge.
Capture articles, papers and product docs into topics as you browse. Weeks later, ask the KB — not your bookmarks — and get an answer built from everything you kept.
Study companion
The whole textbook. On call.
Load the textbook, the lecture slides, the past papers into one KB. Ask it to explain a concept, quiz you, or find the section you half-remember — answers come with page references, so you're studying, not searching.
“quiz me on chapter 8”
Q1 What do the light reactions produce? · Ch. 8 · p.214
Q2 Where does the Calvin cycle run? · Ch. 8 · p.221
Q3 Why does the rate plateau in bright light? · Past paper · 2024 Q4
Business analysis
Meeting noise in. Requirements out.
Dump the workshop transcripts, meeting notes and follow-up emails into the project KB. Ask for the requirements and Om-E extracts them — each one traced back to who said it and when, ready for the spec.
Vendor decision
Two proposals. One verdict. Receipts attached.
Load each proposal as a topic and score them against your criteria. The scorecard shows who wins where — with the evidence attached, not a black-box verdict.
“which vendor fits our security needs?”
A Vendor A — SSO + audit logs, meets. · Proposal A · p.12
B Vendor B — no SAML SSO, a gap. · Proposal B · p.7
▶ Lean Vendor A on security. · Scorecard
Governance
Every document, checked at the gate.
Keep the policy as the source of truth and vet everything against it. Upload the runbook, the contract, the process doc — Om-E checks each one clause by clause, so nothing quietly drifts out of compliance between reviews.
Client document
Research in. Deliverable out.
Point a template at the project KB and generate the deliverable — proposal, report, implementation plan. The substance comes from your captured sources; the format is yours.
“draft the recommendation memo”
¶1 Context — why we ran this evaluation. · Project KB · brief
¶2 Findings — scored against the rubric. · Scorecard topic
¶3 Recommendation — Vendor A, phased. · Comparison topic
Design direction
Inspiration becomes instruction.
Do your web research — save the sites and styles you admire as you browse. Then ask for the patterns: palette, layout, motion, section rhythm. Hand your site builder a brief grounded in your own research, sources attached.
Persona review
Same document. Three verdicts.
Run the review as a governance officer, then a lawyer, then a researcher. The knowledge underneath stays the same — the eyes change. Three cited rulings before anyone external ever sees the document.
“review the retention change as each persona”
⚖ Lawyer — clause conflicts with the MSA. · Contract §9 · MSA §4
✓ Governance — notice window is met. · Policy v2 §6
▲ Researcher — two sources contradict it. · KB · 2 topics
Combine the tools
Every use case is a combination.
Each scene above is two or three tools working together. Here are the pairings people reach for first — every card jumps to the tools behind it.
Governance × Personas
Three reviewers, one KB
Vet the same document as a governance officer, then a lawyer, then a researcher — three rulings, every one cited.
see personasDeep research × Templates
Question in, report out
The research run sweeps and reads the sources; the template turns the findings straight into your client-ready format.
see deep researchComparison × Verification
A verdict with evidence
Lay two proposals side by side, then score both against your rubric — who wins where, with the passages that prove it.
see comparisonWeb search × KBs
Found once, kept forever
The agent finds and reads the pages; capture makes them permanent — still answering long after the live site changes.
see web searchNot a replacement. Reinforcement.
Om-E doesn't do your job. It makes sure every call you make — the vendor, the clause, the answer in the exam, the line in the spec — is an informed one, backed by knowledge that's actually yours.