Switch from Make to Task Machine

Make is a visual automation platform: you assemble scenarios on a canvas from a broad integration catalog, and trigger-action logic fires them, with an expanding AI layer on top. It is builder-centric and good at moving data between apps when the logic is fixed. Task Machine runs the work that needs judgment: agents draft and decide inside deterministic, verifiable workflows, and everything consequential lands in one inbox for your approval. Most people do not replace Make wholesale — they move the scenarios that kept needing a human anyway.

Why do people switch from Make?

• The scenario can't judge. A canvas of modules can route a form entry, but it cannot read an inbound lead and decide whether it deserves a personalized reply. Task Machine agents apply judgment inside the workflow, and you approve the result.
• Human review is not a module. A scenario runs end to end once triggered. Task Machine workflows carry first-class approval and question steps — a person is part of the graph, and every approval from every workflow lands in one shared inbox.
• You maintain the canvas. Each change to the work means opening the builder and rewiring. In Task Machine you direct outcomes: describe the job or pick a playbook, then review from the inbox rather than assembling the machine.
• Runs you can verify. Verifier steps check output inside the run, and step-level run history lets you read exactly what happened, step by step, on every recurring run.

What maps to what?

What do you give up?

Make wins on integration breadth and on the maturity of its visual builder — for pure data plumbing between apps, a scenario is quicker to stand up and the catalog is far larger than Task Machine's connector set. High-volume, zero-judgment automations should stay in Make. The scenarios worth moving are the ones you kept re-editing because the work actually needed a decision, or where someone reviewed the output by hand every time anyway.

How does the switch work?

1. List the scenarios that keep failing on judgment calls or that end with a human check. Those are the candidates. Leave the pure plumbing where it is.
2. Join the Task Machine waitlist, connect the accounts those scenarios touch, and pick playbooks that match the jobs — the catalog covers 123 playbooks across 17 categories.
3. Rebuild each candidate as a workflow with an agent step where judgment lives, an approval step where you want the final say, and a verifier step where quality must be checked.
4. Run both in parallel for a cycle, compare outputs from the run history, then retire the scenario.

Common questions

Does Task Machine replace Make completely?

Usually not. Make stays good at high-volume static data movement, and plenty of teams run both: Make for plumbing, Task Machine for the judgment-heavy recurring work with approvals.

Is there a visual builder like the canvas?

Task Machine workflows are explicit graphs, but the day-to-day surfaces are different: the three-surface workflow (chat, inbox, tasks) is built for operating and approving work, not for assembling it module by module.

Do agents act without my approval?

Only where you allow it. Each agent has an autonomy level, the default routes consequential actions to your inbox, and token and money budgets alert you at 80% and 100%.