Connect with the Product Hunt community

I m running a 3-level classifier (0 normal, 1 distress, 2 crisis) in front of a text generator. Same model, same prompt, same message, and I still get different answers across runs. One test message scored 8 of 10 correct on my latest code and 9 of 10 on a commit from two days earlier. That difference is noise, not a regression, but a single run would have blamed my last prompt change.

What I do about it:

1. Measure the classifier alone, repeated 3 to 10 times per message, separately from the full pipeline.

2. Never trust one signal. The final level is the max of three: a regex phrase filter (it can only raise a level), the classifier, and a level the generation call itself returns. If the classifier errors and no phrase matches, the request fails closed.

final = max(rule, classify, inCall)

When i see agents that can talk see things connect to apps and actually take actions it sounds useful but also makes me wonder where the line should be. Giving an agent more abilities can solve more problems but it also means there are more things that can go wrong when it misunderstands the situation. How do you decide which actions an AI agent should be allowed to handle on its own?

As a solo developer, every day feels like a race where you have to do everything yourself.

From designing and coding to marketing, creating content, talking to users, and everything in between.

Honestly, it can feel like too much for one person.

I think having more tools to build with can make it harder to be honest with ourselves about an idea.

When something is difficult to build, the effort itself forces you to think carefully about whether it s worth pursuing. But when changes take minutes instead of days, it s tempting to keep experimenting just because you can.

Not every unfinished project needs another attempt, and not every rough idea needs to become a product.

I m curious whether the real challenge now is less about execution and more about choosing what deserves our attention in the first place.

I've been wondering how other founders navigate this.

When you're building enterprise software, potential customers may expect security audits, SOC 2 reports, penetration testing, and extensive documentation before they're comfortable using your product.

But for a bootstrapped founder, those things can require significant money before you've earned your first dollar.

It feels like a difficult cycle: you need customers to fund security and compliance, but you need security and compliance to get customers.

An enlightening conversation with my eldest cousin sister currently living abroad who used to work for Infosys 15 years ago:
Me: "Ya so Infosys is still doing mass hiring in Indian colleges, so is Wipro."
Her: "Oh okay, what's the package these days?"
Me: "3-6 LPA CTC."
Her: "What?? This is what WE were paid!"
My other cousin sister worked for Wipro. She said the exact same.
And then Narayana Murthy, Billionaire, Founder of Infosys, says that Indians should have a 72-hour work week, i.e, 12 hours for 6 days.
This is the current state of India's tech sector. Freshers, experienced developers, everyone is struggling to find a job in this market, having to settle for absolute outdated minimum wage stipends. The country's premier engineering institutes are an export sector for global tech companies contributing to the GDP of first world countries, all while said companies setup shop in Bengaluru, Pune, Hyderabad, Gurgaon and outsource majority of their work to cheap Indian labor.
But by all means, lets purchase AI tokens and further add to the problem.

When I started I had a pretty specific idea of what growth would look like. Get a few customers improve the product and slowly build from there. Then reality happened different customers wanted different things some opportunities were hard to ignore and suddenly the business started moving in directions I never expected. How do you know when you re discovering a better path versus just following whatever opportunity shows up next?

does this happen to anyone else?

you get an idea and it feels genius. you can't stop thinking about it, you start building right away. the first weeks are pure energy.

then somewhere along the way the doubts creep in. is this actually useful? would anyone pay for it? didn't someone
already do this better?

and the weird part is it gets worse the closer you get to finishing. right when there's not much left to do, I start seriously thinking about dropping it and moving on to the next shiny idea.

We tried five different launch videos for our mobile app on social media. Some were lifestyle clips. Others were raw screen recordings of the core feature. The lifestyle videos got lots of views.. No one downloaded the app.

The raw screen recording that showed a user fixing a workflow error right away? It got over five hundred sign-ups in forty-eight hours. People on mobile don t wait for intros. They want to see what the product does fast.

Showing the product and its core use in the first three seconds changed everything. Our sign-ups went up. Our conversions improved.

What style of product demo video has brought the sign-ups, for your projects?

When I started I thought saying no would be easy. If something didn t fit the product I d just leave it out. But as things grew every request started feeling important. Some were from customers some from people on the team and some just seemed like opportunities I didn t want to miss. How do you know when saying yes is helping the business grow versus just making it harder to focus?

I spent an entire afternoon trying to get an LLM to write API documentation for a payment gateway. The first three outputs were full of summaries and fake endpoint URLs that looked professional but were completely useless.

The breakthrough happened when I stopped asking for text and fed the model raw JSON payloads along with three specific error response codes. Giving it constraints forced it to write accurate reference guides instead of high-level marketing fluff.

Documentation turnaround time went from four hours down to twenty minutes per release. The secret is treating the model like a technical editor rather, than an open-ended creative writer.

How do you structure your input prompts to get technical output from generative AI models?

I found that my automated coding assistants kept resetting my main environment template file every time I asked them to update dependencies. They acted like my config files were scratchpads erasing custom keys I needed for production. That was a headache.

The fix was simple: I set file-level permissions and added a clear exclusion list in the root instruction file. I made sure to tell the AI exactly which files were, off-limits. After that unintended changes stopped completely.

It saved me hours of debugging and made my local test runs consistent again. Now every time I use an agent the prompt includes a reminder to check file boundaries before running any script.

What method do you use to keep your coding tools from making unauthorized edits to sensitive system files?

We used a lifetime offer to jumpstart our user base, and while the early cash injection was great, the hidden support costs caught us completely off guard. Months later, our inbox is constantly filled with feature requests and tickets from people who paid just once.

It ended up severely slowing down our ability to ship features for actual monthly subscribers.

If you ve been through this, how did you balance servicing LTD users without burning out your support team?

One thing I've learned while building software is that getting a feature to work and making it reliable are two different challenges.

A feature might work perfectly during testing but behave differently when real users interact with it.

For example:

• A form works, but doesn't handle unexpected input properly.

• An API responds correctly, but fails when an external service becomes unavailable.

• A dashboard displays accurate information, but doesn't distinguish between current and outdated data.

• An AI feature produces a convincing answer, but doesn't have enough context to support its conclusion.

The hardest thing to get right was getting people successfully through sign-up.

Initially I started with one time links, had a few successful sign ups and inbetween them would be a couple 'unauthenticated' emails. I would reach out via email to try find out why they didn't complete the process, but get no response. I eventually found out that some email providers burn the one time link when they scan the email.

I ve been trying different tools to find competitors for my product, but most either show irrelevant results or miss similar products entirely.

Curious how other founders approach this. Do you rely on tools, Google searches, or manual research?

I m also wondering if there s a better way to solve this. Would love to hear your thoughts and recommendations.

Working on a project that I will be submitting to the Muse platform for soon, but I'm curious to know if anyone has already gone down this route and what they've learned. I will report back when I learn more if others are curious.

Used to reach out on linkedin to ask people for quick product feedback and actually got decent replies. Lately response rates completely cratered probably because everyone's inbox is spammed with automated sales pitches.

Reaching out manually feels like a waste of time now since people just assume it's a bot.

Are you guys getting better luck jumping into discord channels and niche reddit subs instead?

When I started out, I kept trying to post new threads right away thinking it would drive traffic but almost none of them got through moderation.

After spending time engaging on other founders' launches and building up actual profile activity the approval process felt completely different. It seems like the system prioritizes known participants over raw post volume.

Did you notice a specific turning point where your discussion posts started getting approved consistently?

I used to research competitors heavily before launching, then barely check them once I started building.

Most updates are easy to ignore. A pricing change, new integration, or shift in positioning can sometimes force a serious rethink.

Has a competitor ever made a move that changed what you built, priced, or removed? How did you decide whether to respond or stay focused on your own roadmap?

LinkedIn, their site, their pricing page, their careers page, a podcast they were on, Crunchbase, two competitor tabs, my notes doc, and four tabs I genuinely don't remember opening.

Then I write three sentences.

I stopped working this way a while ago and I want to know if everyone else did too.

.

I was on a free plan for too long, but it wasn't because of limitations. Buying was an admission that my project was real. The day I upgraded was the day I had to maintain the history of the funnel beyond the free plan's capability, and I realized that I was treating the app as a disposable item that I checked every morning.

This made me think of what pushed people over the edge. For me, it was never the list of features. It was a little bit of friction at a critical moment, such as losing my data or hitting a limit while debugging.

Transitioning from head-down feature dev to actually pulling in real users is always a brutal reality check. You put together a decent product but suddenly standing out feels like screaming into a void.

Standard tricks like churning out daily tweets or blasting cold newsletters don't seem to yield much ROI these days.

Most folks just scroll right past aggressive ads anyway.

For anyone who managed to break past those initial zero user hurdles recently: where did your most reliable traffic actually come from? Did organic community discussions do the heavy lifting, or did you find success elsewhere?

We created a seven step onboarding email series for our SaaS beta users hoping for strong engagement after launch day. Seventy percent of the emails were opened, yet we got no replies or feedback.

We altered our plan by taking out links from the email and asking users one clear question about their current workflow. When real people began replying with their problems our sender reputation improved and inbox placement steadied.

The conversations gave us product insights that directly guided our next feature update. Direct conversation always outperforms automated broadcasts.

How do you encourage users to start a real conversation, through automated onboarding emails?