Your first win is a useful result you can check. Give one Bot a narrow responsibility before adding recurring work.
Choose a job with a visible finish line
Grok Bot is a product for delegating work to Bots, with its own setup, skills, and routines. This guide concerns that product. Begin with something you already understand: checking a service FAQ for gaps. You should be able to compare its answer with the original material without needing another expert.
Imagine a small creative studio that repeatedly answers questions about turnaround time, revision rounds, and what customers must supply. A useful first result is a table of unanswered questions, supporting text, and proposed edits. That gives you something to improve today and a clear way to judge the Bot.
Set up one focused Bot
Use the official getting-started guide below to check eligible access and install the correct Grok Bot app. The current desktop flow signs in through a Cursor account; linked subscription options and organizational access can vary. Review its data settings before adding work material.
During onboarding, select a suggested teammate or create your own Bot. Give it a short name, one responsibility, and operating instructions. Our example is FAQ Reviewer: identify missing or contradictory answers using supplied material. Choosing tools during onboarding does not itself connect them. An attached, non-sensitive document is enough for this exercise.
Prepare material that makes judgment possible
Create a practice document with your current FAQ, five anonymized customer questions, and the policies you have actually approved. If this is fictional practice, label the whole document fictional. Include one deliberate gap, such as a customer asking about weekend delivery when the policy says nothing about weekends.
Define three kinds of output: supported answers, missing information, and suggested wording. Ask for the exact passage that supports each finding. A recommendation should never quietly become company policy. If the source does not establish an answer, the useful result is a question for you.
Review what changed, not how confident it sounds
Run the prompt below, then inspect the deliberate gap first. Did the Bot flag it, or invent a reassuring promise? Next, choose three findings and trace them back to the supplied document. Check whether suggested edits preserve your conditions, exclusions, and tone.
For example, changing “usually delivered within five business days after approval” to “delivered in five days” removes two important conditions. Tell the Bot precisely what it lost, ask for a revision, and retain that correction in your reusable instructions. Count unsupported claims and minutes spent correcting the result. A polished table alone does not establish that the process saved time.
Repeat only when the method holds up
Grok Bot distinguishes a skill, which describes a method, from a routine, which determines when a Bot runs it. After successful trials, save the FAQ review method as a skill. Include the required source documents, your review criteria, and the instruction to return suggestions without publishing them.
Try a second document with a different gap before considering a routine. If your FAQ changes monthly, a monthly review may be more useful than a daily alert. Confirm the schedule, timezone, input location, and failure reporting. Check the first recurring results yourself; missing files or expired access should produce an explicit problem report.
Prompts to put it into practice
Replace the brackets with your context. Use information you have permission to share.
Run a first FAQ review
Review the attached practice FAQ, customer questions, and approved policies. Return a table with: customer question, current answer, supporting passage, gap or contradiction, and suggested edit. Label anything that needs a decision from me. Preserve all policy conditions. If a detail is absent, write 'not established by the supplied material.' Do not invent delivery, refund, pricing, or service promises. Finish with the three most useful questions for the owner. Produce a draft only; do not change or publish the source.
Try it on your work
Use a non-sensitive FAQ with one known omission. Review the Bot's result against the source, revise the instructions, and run it on a second example.
Check the result
- The known omission is identified without an invented answer.
- Three sampled findings point to accurate supporting passages.
- Proposed copy preserves existing policy conditions.
- You know who reviews the result and what happens when a source is missing.
Sources & further reading
Product documentation checked October 16, 2026. Features, labels, and access can change. Examples and practice prompts are original AI Teachers teaching material.