Rosie Martin

I've noticed that many founders struggle with deciding when a product is truly ready to launch.

Some teams release an MVP within a few weeks to gather real user feedback, while others spend months refining features in pursuit of the "perfect" product. Both approaches have their pros and cons.

In my experience, it's easy to keep adding features because there's always something that could be improved. But at some point, launching and learning from real users becomes more valuable than continuing to build in isolation.

I'm curious how other founders approach this:

One lesson that changed my perspective was realizing that building more features doesn't automatically create a better product.

Early on, I believed that if we kept adding functionality, users would naturally see more value. We spent a lot of time improving the product, but adoption barely changed. The problem wasn't the number of features it was that we hadn't spent enough time understanding what users actually needed.

Two months ago I asked here how people stay aware of what their agents are doing, and @getosmo replied with something that has been quietly rearranging my roadmap since.

I had been treating "can you undo it" as the line for when an agent should stop and ask. He took that apart. Irreversibility over-fires and under-fires, he said. It over-fires on things that cannot be undone but that nobody cares about, like the agent writing a log line. It under-fires on the ones that really hurt: a mass email to 50k users, or a migration you can only roll back after downtime. "Reversible on paper, ruinous in practice."