Eodly - Know what your team actually shipped today
by•
Eodly reads Slack, Telegram, Discord, GitHub and Linear, and sends founders one sourced page each evening: who shipped, who's quiet, who's slipping, and any status that doesn't match reality. Your team never logs in. A chief of staff, not surveillance.
Replies
Eodly
I'd love something like this but from the reverse angle, to help teams upwardly demonstrate progress and what goes into making something a reality. Something that helps aggregate a whole teams efforts for the day, while showing some of the "how the sausage gets made". As HOP I find that collecting these signals daily to share forward momentum upwards can be more time consuming than it sound on paper.
As an example from your website, a positive signal as: "Closed the auth refactor. 3 PRs merged, staging green."
But then translating that into something csuite will understand how that's valuable for the business and what the outcomes are/what it unlocks - then do that for 7+ in flight epics, across 30+ engineers.
Eodly
@cadell_falconer This is a sharp angle and honestly where we want to go. Today, Eodly points at the founder or lead getting the unfiltered daily truth, sourced from the work. The upward version you are describing, rolling a team's day into a weekly narrative leadership actually understands ("3 PRs merged, staging green" becomes "checkout is unblocked, launch is on track"), is on our near-term roadmap, not shipped yet, so I will not pretend it is live. But the daily sourced signal is exactly the raw material for it, and as a HoP, you are precisely who we would want to shape it with. If you are open to it, I would love to compare notes on what that upward report has to say to land with your C-suite.
@juwon55 I'm open to chat. Sure!
Congrats on launching!
Curious, how does the "chief of staff, not surveillance" framing land with team members? How have folks reacted to being flagged as "quiet" or "slipping"?
Eodly
@grace_knowhow Thanks! The key thing: team members never see the flags. Their whole experience is one friendly DM in Slack or Telegram for a one-line update, no dashboard, no login, no scoreboard. The "quiet" and "slipping" synthesis is the founder's private read, never broadcast back to the team, and there's no per-person leaderboard anywhere (and never will be; that's a hard line for us). Anyone marked off isn't flagged at all.
Honestly, it's early post-launch, so I won't pretend I have a large sample of reactions yet. But the bet is simple: if the team's only touchpoint is a 20-second DM and nobody gets graded in a UI, it stays a tool that helps the founder rather than one that watches the team. Happy to report back as more teams run it.
The evening digest idea is genuinely useful, especially catching when someone's Slack optimism doesn't match their Linear tickets. Liked that it pulls from multiple sources without making the team log into yet another tool.
Eodly
@eminenv9f Thank you, you nailed the two things we care about most: the cross-source catch (Slack optimism vs the Linear reality) and never making the team log into yet another tool. That's basically the whole thesis. Appreciate you taking a proper look.
different angle from the team-morale question above: what about false positives on the "status doesn't match reality" flag specifically. someone could be genuinely blocked on a design review that's happening in a call, or deep in research that doesn't produce commits or messages for two days, and that would look identical to actual slipping from the outside signals you're reading. does the founder get any confidence level on those flags, or is it presented as flat fact each evening? seems like the credibility of the whole digest hinges on that ratio being low
Eodly
@galdayan Exactly the failure mode we built against, so good question. The flag isn't "no signal = slipping." It only fires when someone's own check-in claims progress that the system of record contradicts. A day in a design review or heads-down in research doesn't trip it: if they check in and say so ("in review," "deep in the refactor, no PRs yet"), that's the context, there's no claim to contradict. No check-in and no activity just surfaces as silent, a neutral "hasn't checked in," never as "slipping." Anyone marked off on the calendar is suppressed entirely.
On confidence: it's never a verdict. Every flag shows the claim and the evidence side by side ("said almost done; Linear shows no movement since Tuesday") and is dismissible in a click. We show the receipts, and the founder judges. You're dead right that the whole thing lives or dies on that false-positive ratio, which is exactly why it surfaces its sources instead of asserting a conclusion.
@juwon55 the evidence-alongside-claim framing is what makes this different from what I was picturing, if the founder still has to look at the receipts and decide, that's a real check on the false-positive problem rather than the tool quietly deciding for them. the neutral "hasn't checked in" wording instead of "slipping" is a small thing but it matters for how this actually gets used day to day
This looks like something I'd like to use. How do we trigger the Eodly check from, lets say, WhatsApp? Do I have to tag it in a message and it checks whats happening, or is it only a daily overview kinda report?
Eodly
@alohiya95 Thanks, Arnav. On the trigger: it is not you tagging it to check. Your team sends one short daily check-in to the bot, Eodly reads GitHub and Linear continuously in the background, and you get one sourced report at the time you set, plus a live dashboard you can open any time to watch the day form. So it is a daily digest by default, with a live view when you want to peek mid-day. Your team can check in from wherever they already talk: Slack, Telegram, Microsoft Teams, or Discord. WhatsApp is coming in v2.
Foyer
The "what actually shipped" framing is interesting because it implies you're pulling from somewhere more reliable than self-reported updates. So I'm curious where the data actually comes from. Are you connecting to Git commits, Jira tickets, pull request merges, or is this still fundamentally a standup tool where the accuracy depends on what people remember to log? That gap between "what got done" and "what someone typed at 5pm" is where every async status tool I've seen falls apart.
Eodly
@fberrez1 Great question, and it's the exact line we obsess over. The check-in is one short message, but it is not what the report trusts. We pull the real signals directly: GitHub commits, pull request merges, and issues, plus Linear ticket state, over signed webhooks. Then we weigh the check-in against that. "Almost done" only reads as progress if there is a merged PR or a moved ticket behind it, and when there isn't, we flag the gap instead of hiding it. That distance between "what got done" and "what someone typed at 5 pm" is not a bug we are papering over; it is the thing we surface. Honest caveat: for work that never touches a repo or tracker (a sales call, a Figma file), we verify what we can (live links, social posts, screenshots) and label the rest as self-reported rather than pretend it is proven. We would rather show you the seam than fake certainty.
Love the evening digest concept, really cuts through the noise. One thing I'd want is a quick way to reply or comment on an entry straight from the email, like a thumbs up on a ship or a nudge to someone quiet, so I can act on it without opening another tab.
Eodly
@kardelen452289 Love this, and it is closer than you would think. The report does not land in a cold email tab; it comes to you in Slack or Telegram, so you can already reply or react right in the thread. The one-tap version you are describing, a thumbs up on a ship or a nudge to someone who has gone quiet straight from the report, is exactly the direction we want to take it, so it becomes something you act on in ten seconds instead of just reading and writing it down now. Which would you reach for more, the nudge or the reactions?