Tasklet deserved its fans. It took the "just tell it what to do" approach further than most: describe a task in conversation and its cloud agent figured out the tools, the steps, and the execution order on its own, running in isolated sandboxes with triggers, subagents, and even browser automation for apps without APIs. For quick personal automations with zero upfront setup, it was impressively fast.
That chapter is ending. Tasklet has stopped accepting new signups and announced a wind-down: free accounts are deleted on August 15, 2026, and paid accounts on September 14, 2026. If your automations live there, they need a new home in the next few weeks, and anything you have not exported will go with the servers.
General Input is the closest philosophical successor: you describe work in plain English, the platform builds it, and it runs in the cloud on triggers and schedules. The difference is that General Input was built for the parts Tasklet deferred: a reviewable workflow you can inspect before it runs, approval gates, per-run cost transparency, model choice, team permissions, and a company behind it operating a durable platform.
What Tasklet got right
- Conversation as the interface. No canvas, no nodes. You talked, it worked. General Input shares this DNA, down to voice dictation for building workflows by speaking.
- Always-on cloud execution. Agents ran server-side with schedules, webhooks, and email triggers, no laptop required.
- Sandboxed runs. Each task executed in an isolated cloud sandbox, a real security decision more platforms should have made.
- Browser automation. Driving a real browser for apps without APIs was genuinely useful, and remains the one Tasklet feature without a General Input equivalent today.
How they compare
| General Input | Tasklet | |
|---|---|---|
| Natural language workflow creation | ||
| Reviewable workflow before deploymentGeneral Input produces a structured workflow you inspect and approve. Tasklet's agent decided its approach at run time. | ||
| Always-on triggers (schedule, webhook, email) | ||
| Sandboxed, isolated execution | ||
| App integrationsGeneral Input: 500+ apps with managed OAuth. Tasklet: a smaller native set plus browser automation. | 500+ | |
| Browser automation (computer use) | ||
| Human-in-the-loop approval gates | ||
| Model choiceGeneral Input: two dozen models from nine labs, your own keys, or your subscriptions via Token Tunnel. Tasklet ran a fixed model stack. | ||
| Per-run cost transparencyTasklet credits had no published per-task rate and varied by complexity. General Input shows the exact cost of every run. | ||
| Team workspaces with permissions | ||
| Deterministic code workflows | ||
| Accepting new users |
Migrating from Tasklet to General Input
Most Tasklet automations translate directly, because the two platforms share the same core idea. A practical path:
- Inventory your tasks. In Tasklet, list every task, its trigger (schedule, webhook, email), the connected accounts it uses, and what it produces. Copy each task's instruction text; that text is most of your migration.
- Recreate by describing. Paste each task description into General Input's builder chat, or dictate it. The builder produces a structured workflow you can review, edit, and approve before it ever runs, which is the step Tasklet skipped.
- Reconnect your apps. General Input has managed OAuth for 500+ integrations, so the accounts Tasklet reached through its connectors reconnect in a couple of clicks each, with credentials encrypted, isolated from the model, and scoped by the Agent Firewall to only the operations each workflow needs.
- Re-point your triggers. Schedules are configured in the workflow; webhook triggers get a fresh General Input URL to paste into the source system; email-driven tasks watch the Gmail or Outlook inbox you connect.
- Add the guardrails Tasklet lacked. Put approval gates in front of anything that emails a customer or spends money, and check the per-run cost breakdown after the first few executions.
The one gap to plan around: workflows that relied on Tasklet's browser automation. General Input does not drive a browser today, so those flows should move to API-based integrations, which are more reliable at production volume anyway. If the app in question is among the 500+ in the catalog, the API path usually covers what the browser was doing.
Pricing after the move
Tasklet billed credits with no published per-task rate, no rollover, and consumption that varied with task complexity and the intelligence tier its agent chose. General Input's credits are transparent: $25 buys 4,000, every execution reports its exact cost broken down by step, and there is a free plan to migrate onto before committing. If you already pay for ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or Grok, Token Tunnel can run those subscriptions inside your workflows so the model portion of your runs costs nothing extra.
FAQs
Can General Input import my Tasklet tasks automatically?
There is no one-click importer, because Tasklet tasks are free-form agent instructions rather than a portable format. In practice the instruction text is the task: paste it into the builder and review what comes out. Most tasks rebuild in minutes.
What happens to my Tasklet data after the deadlines?
Per Tasklet's wind-down notice, accounts and their data are deleted on the dates above. Export everything you might need first: instruction text, trigger settings, run history you want to keep, and the list of connected accounts.
Is General Input going to disappear too?
No platform can promise forever, but the risk profile is different: General Input is a revenue-funded platform business, and your exit options are stronger, workflows are inspectable and exportable, an Enterprise deployment can run on your own infrastructure, and your model spend can live in subscriptions you control through Token Tunnel.
I used Tasklet's subagents. What is the equivalent?
Agents in General Input can be composed: a workflow can invoke other workflows and skills, so a "research subagent plus writing subagent" pattern becomes two workflows or skills orchestrated by a third.
The bottom line
Tasklet proved that conversational automation works. General Input is where that idea grows up: the same describe-it-and-it-runs experience, plus the review step, approvals, cost transparency, model freedom, and team governance that production automation needs, from a platform that will still be here next year. Migrate before your deadline, and bring the instruction text; it is most of the work.