Looking for Make.com contractors for ongoing project work.
Fixed-fee per build, $300–$900 depending on complexity.
2–4 builds per month once we’re at volume.
Must handle error cases, fallbacks, and retries in every workflow —
not just the happy path. Portfolio required.
Send a 2-minute Loom walking through one past build. Show me the
scenario in the editor, how you handled a failure, and how you
named your modules.
Remote, async OK. DM if interested.
Hi @Kelyan_Konan,
Interested. I sent you a DM on the n8n forum earlier today about the same post (Make doesn’t let me message you here). Short version: I’m an AI engineer, my past builds are in code rather than the Make editor, and I’m building a Make scenario set this week (Gmail and Yahoo inboxes exposed to Claude through the Make MCP server). The 2-minute Loom on it, with the error handlers, retries and module naming, will reach you by Friday 6 Nov. Your USD 300-900 per build works for me.
Portfolio: suyashmulik.com | [email protected]
Suyash
hey @Kelyan_Konan pleae check my portfolio at portfolio.consultevo.com , you will see many make builts there and opportunity to test yourself
If interested, contact information is in the same site
Hi @Kelyan_Konan, I build Make.com scenarios with proper error routes, retries and fallbacks (Python/API integrations alongside, so non-trivial logic is not a problem). The fixed-fee per build model works for me. Happy to record a short walkthrough of a past build showing the scenario, a failure case and module naming. Please contact me at [email protected] and tell me which build you would start with.
Paweł, FluxLab
Hi Suyash,
Thanks for the email, and no worries about the double message—I saw your note on the n8n forum as well. The platform actually locked me out of sending new replies for 24 hours because of the volume, so I’m glad you reached out here.
As I mentioned earlier, I really appreciate the honesty about your background being code-first. Having someone who can write Python/TypeScript for complex API stitching is a huge asset for my Enterprise builds.
Friday, Nov 6, works perfectly for the Loom. I want to see how you translate that coding logic into the visual Make or n8n editor.
Just as a quick reminder of the model so we stay aligned:
The Loom is the unpaid vetting step.
I run an agency model—I handle scoping/sales, you build.
Pipeline: I am building the bench ahead of demand, so the first paid project is likely 1 to 2 months out.
If you’re cool with that, I’ll look out for the Loom on Friday. If it looks good, I’ll add you to the official roster.
Best,
Kelyan
Hi HWORK72,
Thanks for reaching out. Your portfolio is seriously impressive—the FastAPI/Playwright scraping architecture and the TON blockchain bot show you have deep backend engineering skills.
However, I have a strict policy against “zero upfront payment” models. My agency operates on a cash-flow structure where the client pays a 50% deposit, and I immediately pay the developer a 20% onboarding milestone. I do this because I want developers who are financially locked in and committed to prioritizing my builds, not working for free until the end. I also require a fixed-fee structure to protect my margins.
Also, my clients specifically require workflows built in Make.com and n8n. Your portfolio is heavily code-based. Do you have experience building visual scenarios in Make or n8n?
I want to be transparent: I run a productized agency, I handle the sales/scoping, and I am currently expanding my bench ahead of demand (first paid projects will drop in 1–2 months). The vetting process is an unpaid 2-minute Loom walking through a past Make/n8n scenario, showing error handling and module naming.
If you have Make/n8n experience and are cool with the 20% upfront milestone structure, send over the Loom. If not, no hard feelings.
Best,
Kelyan
Hi Kelyan, sounds good on all points, and thanks for the test scenario. I’ve replied with the details in the n8n DM. Loom by Friday 6 Nov.
Suyash
thanks for the feedback on the portfolio. i actually build visual workflows in make and n8n all the time often combining them with custom webhook routers and python nodes when standard scenarois hit limits
your 20% onboarding milestone structure sounds great to me and fixed fee per build is totally fine. i also work with usdt crypto payouts for settelments
since your first client projects are dropping in a month or two lets connect on discord or telegram. once your first real build is ready i will gladly send over a quick walkthrough of the error routing setup so we can start immediately. what is your preferred contact for scoping when the builds go live?
my reply limit has reached its max on n8n, but i have received your message.
Can’t wait for friday,
Kelyan
Hi @Kelyan_Konan! I would love to help you with your automation projects. I’d implement robust error handling using break directives and fallback routes for all custom webhooks and HTTP modules.
Relevant projects: my team and I built an Airtable budgeting and invoicing system synced to QuickBooks Online through Make, a Meta Ads to Notion reporting system, and WhatsApp and Instagram AI agents for a medical clinic. More at www.aspirity.com
2-minute Loom video → Please check it here: Automation Error Handling with Make.com and QuickBooks | Loom
We are a small team of make.com experts and have developed plenty of complex integrations. This project should not be a challenge to us.
If you are interested we would love to help you, you can schedule a call here: Automation Discovery Call | Felipe Saucedo | Cal.com or check our website www.aspirity.com
I would love to connect via email if you are also on board.
Hi Felipe,
I just watched your Loom. Honestly, it’s the best one I’ve received. The way you handle router fallbacks, missing fields, and duplicate invoice prevention is exactly the production-grade standard I’m building this agency on. Plus, your experience syncing QuickBooks and Airtable is directly aligned with my target market.
I’m fast-tracking you. You don’t need to do the rest of the vetting. Consider yourself officially on the bench as our Tier 1 Enterprise/QuickBooks Specialist.
Before I add you to the Slack workspace, I need to make sure my model works for you:
I run an arbitrage agency. I handle sales and QA; you build behind the scenes using anonymized test data. You never talk to the client.
The budget is $300–$900 per build (fixed fee), paid 20% upfront and 80% on delivery.
Important Timeline: I am currently in the client-acquisition phase. The first paid project is likely 1 to 2 months out.
If you are cool with that structure and timeline, reply with a quick “Agreed” and I’ll get you set up in our private contractor Slack.
Best,
Kelyan
sounds great. you can reach me directly at hwork72 @ proton.me and i also left my telegram @HWORK72 if you ever prefer quik chat. shoot me an email whenever you have a second or drop yours here and i will send you a quick hello so we have each other on file. looking forward to collaborting when the builds kick off
Hi @Kelyan_Konan Agreed
Hi Kelyan,
When building for volume the happy path is irrelevant. The real work is deterministic state management. To handle automated retries at scale without infinite loops you need a decoupled error queue architecture. Instead of just adding native error routers to every module you route failed payloads to a central ledger that dictates exactly when and how to safely replay the data.
For full transparency I am affiliated with Pond AI. Pond AI builds runs and maintains custom AI agents. You will get a free architecture mapped out showing exactly how to structure these global fallbacks and that design is completely yours to keep. If you decide to let us handle the execution every custom AI agent build comes with a 7 day refund.
Are you currently using native Make error directives or are you pushing failed executions to an external database?
Hi Kelyan,
I’m interested in this. I build in Make and n8n, and I hold the Make Advanced certificate. My account here is new, so the forum won’t let me send you a DM yet.
You can message me here or email me at [email protected], and I’ll send my full reply with a walkthrough of a past build.
Cheers,
John Muñoz
UPDATE: POSITION CLOSED
Thank you to everyone who reached out and sent Looms. The response was overwhelming, and the quality of the automation engineers in this community is genuinely incredible.
I have officially filled all the slots on my contractor bench for this quarter, so I am closing this post and will not be accepting any new applications.
For those who applied and haven’t heard back yet: I am still reviewing the Looms, but due to the volume, I won’t be able to reply to everyone individually. I am keeping all your profiles on file, and if my client volume increases and I need to scale the bench again, I will reach out directly.
Thanks again for the interest and the great conversations.
Best,
Kelyan
Yann Automations
Hi @Kelyan_Konan, congratulations on filling the bench, that volume of strong responses says a lot about how you framed the offer.
For full transparency I am affiliated with Pond. I want to flag the one thing your thread did not touch, for whenever you scale the bench again.
Everyone here offered to build. Nobody offered to run and maintain. For an agency reselling to clients, the build is the cheap part. The expensive part arrives later, the message at two in the morning when a client scenario silently stops firing and you are the name on the invoice. A rotating bench of builders does not solve that, because once a contractor hands over a build and moves on, the monitoring, the alerting and the fixes have no owner.
Pond AI builds, runs and maintains custom AI agents, so the run and maintain layer is exactly the piece a build only bench leaves exposed. If it is useful down the line, I can map out a monitoring and maintenance architecture for the kind of client work you resell, showing how to catch a dead scenario before the client does, and that blueprint is yours to keep whether or not we ever work together. If you did decide to let Pond AI own that layer, every custom build comes with a 7 day refund cover.
When you scale again next quarter, is ongoing maintenance something you plan to keep in house, or would you rather a partner carry the run and maintain side so your builders stay focused on building?
Hey @Kelyan_Konan, fair enough that the slots are full, and no worries on timing. Worth planting a flag for the next round though, because there is a gap in the bench model that only shows up once you are actually at volume.
Two to four builds a month from a rotating set of contractors means drift. One person names modules one way, handles retries another, logs errors somewhere else. Your QA then has to relearn every build from scratch, and the client experience gets inconsistent even when each individual build is solid. The thing that fixes it is not a better builder, it is a shared standard, a naming convention, a common error handling pattern and a template library every build starts from.
That is the part I would raise, and for full transparency I am affiliated with Pond AI. Pond AI builds, runs and maintains custom AI agents, and standardizing a build system so a bench produces consistent, maintainable output is squarely the kind of thing we set up. If helpful when you expand again, I can lay out that standard for you, the conventions, the reusable error handling blocks and the template structure, free, and it stays yours regardless of what you decide.
And if you ever want Pond AI to own a slice of the execution rather than just hand you the standard, every custom build comes with a 7 day refund, so you can see whether the consistency actually holds before committing.
When volume ramps, is keeping builds consistent across different contractors already a concern for you, or is that further down the road?