Associate Editor, Intelligent Automation

Publishing

Reviews, head-to-head comparisons, and category pages written against a published methodology: weighted scoring criteria, sequential positions, stated evaluation dates. Rankings are re-scored on a cycle, not adjusted by opinion.

The fact base

Every claim you publish becomes a row with a value, an as_of_date, a source URL, and a source name. Pricing, integration counts, and usage quotas are re-verified on weekly basis. Facts without a source don't ship, and that's enforced in the pipeline rather than left to discipline.

Editor's Notes

One hard number from something you did, one honest caveat, signed. "Where it breaks:" is a required sentence, not an optional one.

Field sentiment

Track what practitioners actually say on Reddit, Hacker News, vendor communities, and review platforms, then convert it into testable leads. A recurring complaint is not a finding; it's a hypothesis you go reproduce in the product. Where it holds up, it becomes a dated fact or a caveat with a number attached. Where it doesn't, that's worth publishing too.

Structured output

You are writing for a parser as much as a reader: abstracts and short answers are the fields assistants lift and cite verbatim, so they get disproportionate care.

You

You don't need to arrive an expert in every category we cover; nobody is one. The deeper material is taught in the work: BPM and iPaaS architecture, how an evaluation is designed, how a scoring framework gets built and then defended against the vendor who dislikes the result. You'll learn it alongside the Chief Editor, a working automation consultant, and against the practitioners outside the company we compare pressure-test findings with. What isn't teachable is the instinct to check.

What we need on day one:

• You've automated something real, in a business. n8n, Zapier, Make, Power Automate, or comparable, inside an SME, an ops team, or anywhere a broken process cost someone their afternoon. You've hit rate limits, debugged a webhook that fired twice, and know why a queue exists. Production workflows, messy ones included, count for more than a writing portfolio.
• Plain, structured writing. Encyclopedic, third person, every claim dated. No guru voice, no filler. Blunt and true beats polished and empty.
• Adversarial by instinct. You go looking for the quota, the default that silently eats data at scale, the tier where the pricing model quietly changes shape. Not the feature list.
• Fluency in where practitioners complain. Reddit, Hacker News, vendor forums, and community Slacks surface real failure modes a year before the docs concede them. You can tell a signal from a pile-on.
• Methodological discipline. You can hold one weighted framework steady across dozens of tools, and defend a score you personally disagree with.

Taught on the job:

• Category architecture
• Evaluation and scoring design
• The fact pipeline and its clocks
• Structured data and how assistants actually consume it

Useful if you have it:

• iPaaS or BPM platforms specifically rather than workflow builders alone
• AI agent tooling
• A background in manufacturing, admin-heavy ops, or another process-heavy industry
• Prior review, journalism, or technical writing work

Apply

We want to get to know you and your work! We encourage you to reach out to us on linkedin via our company page or directly through connecting with https://www.linkedin.com/in/rafal-fila-shadowgen/, to arrange an online interview.