Skip to main content
Workflows

Four focused workflows. One pilot starts with one.

These are not all being built at once. WhiskerMatch starts with one repeated handoff beside the tools a team already uses.

Compare the four workflowsTalk through one workflow
Current pilot focus

Choose the handoff that keeps costing time.

Each pilot version names its inputs, owner, human decision, success signal, stop line, and what stays in the current stack.

Foster update routing

WhiskerMatch does not replace the foster who knows the animal. It keeps their context from getting lost.

Today's pain
Useful context lands in texts and group chats, then depends on one person remembering where it belongs.
What changes
Updates return to the animal record with a source, owner, and explicit next action.
Inputs
Foster texts, check-ins, photos, observations, and requests.
Owner
Foster coordinator or named routing owner.
What may be prepared
A foster coordinator records the update, separates observations from requests, and names missing context.
Humans decide
Whether the update changes care, behavior context, public wording, or follow-up.
Pilot version
One foster group, one routing owner, and one weekly review cadence.
Success signal
Foster updates stop requiring a search through old messages.
What remains in existing tools
Foster communication channels and the shelter's system of record remain in place.
Never automated
Behavior conclusions, medical conclusions, or public profile changes.

Public profile review gate

Unknown should stay unknown until someone reviews it. A faster profile is not worth a riskier one.

Today's pain
A public profile can lag behind current foster or staff context, or change without a recorded reviewer.
What changes
Drafts stay internal until a named human approves, holds, or requests changes.
Inputs
Current public copy, approved intake facts, foster updates, and medical or behavior caveats.
Owner
Named profile reviewer.
What may be prepared
Draft clear public wording from attached, reviewed source material.
Humans decide
What is accurate, safe, useful, and ready to publish.
Pilot version
Three to five profiles with one reviewer and explicit hold reasons.
Success signal
Correct context reaches the public only after review.
What remains in existing tools
The existing website, listing service, and publishing tool remain in place.
Never automated
Publishing, medical claims, behavior claims, or removal of uncertainty.

Applicant review lane

The point is not to score people faster. It is to keep staff from rebuilding the same context before every reply.

Today's pain
Applications, documents, and questions sit in separate inbox threads without a shared state.
What changes
Each applicant has a visible review stage attached to the animal record.
Inputs
Applications, supporting documents, questions, replies, and shelter policy.
Owner
Adoption coordinator or named applicant reviewer.
What may be prepared
An adoption coordinator organizes documents, reviews the timeline, and writes routine replies.
Humans decide
What information matters, what question comes next, and every applicant outcome.
Pilot version
Five to ten applications with one adoption coordinator and explicit stages.
Success signal
Fewer ownerless applications and fewer repeated questions.
What remains in existing tools
The application form, inbox, and final placement process remain in existing tools.
Never automated
Applicant ranking, rejection, placement decisions, or policy exceptions.

Special-needs care profile

A disabled or medically complex animal is not a harder row in a queue. The care story needs room to be understood.

Today's pain
Daily care, mobility, medication, foster observations, and adopter education live in separate notes.
What changes
A Care Story Card keeps approved care context, open questions, and the required human decision together.
Inputs
Foster observations, routines, approved medical context, mobility notes, and open care questions.
Owner
Named care-story reviewer with appropriate staff or professional escalation.
What may be prepared
A care-story reviewer organizes source notes and writes a bounded summary that preserves uncertainty.
Humans decide
What the animal needs, what requires veterinary or behavior interpretation, and what an adopter should understand.
Pilot version
One fictional or approved special-needs workflow with a named care-story reviewer.
Success signal
The reviewer sees daily-life context without reducing the animal to a condition.
What remains in existing tools
Clinical records, behavior assessments, and placement decisions remain with the responsible people and systems.
Never automated
Diagnosis, adopter qualification, risk scoring, or placement readiness.
Held on every page
  • AI drafts one sourced profile. Humans decide.
  • Photos are context, not decisions.
  • Medical notes require human and veterinary interpretation.
  • Unknown stays visible.
  • Reviewer override remains clear.
  • WhiskerMatch does not rank adopters as truth.
  • WhiskerMatch does not diagnose.
  • WhiskerMatch does not auto-place animals.
Read the full trust boundaries →
Later, after pilot evidence

Useful directions, not current scope claims.

The items below remain later possibilities. They should not compete with proving one focused workflow useful and safe with a real shelter or rescue.

  • Stray intake with photo context

    The intake photo stays attached to the source facts, explicit unknowns, current owner, and next human review step.

  • Intake cleanup

    One structured intake view keeps source, owner, completeness, and unknown fields visible.

  • Medical note handoff

    The source, review state, plain-language draft, and professional follow-up stay visibly separate.

  • Behavior note handoff

    Observations stay attributed and the reviewer can compare context before changing care or placement language.

  • Adopter clarification

    The missing information, approved animal context, question, sender, and response return to the same review lane.

  • Rescue partner referral

    The referral keeps approved care context, current needs, source notes, and a named sender together.

  • Follow-up ownership

    Every follow-up keeps an owner, due date, source context, and completion event.

  • Director posture board

    A bounded posture board shows blockers, owners, due work, and review states.

  • Volunteer reviewer queue

    A bounded queue presents the current draft, source material, and allowed review actions.

  • Audit and source trail

    Each material change records the actor, source, timing, and review decision.

  • Reviewer override

    The human reviewer can edit, hold, override, or stop the prepared work with a visible reason.

  • Pilot feedback loop

    Feedback is attached to the workflow, expected behavior, owner, decision, and follow-up date.

Founder-supported pilot.

Pick one workflow for a pilot.

A busy shelter should not need a perfect process to start. Bring the workflow as it really operates, including the awkward parts.

Talk through a pilotReview the pilot scope