As someone who constantly deals with quick data-gathering tasks, I got tired of over-complicated tools. So, I built a fast, no-nonsense web app called Nexus Intel.
How it helps you:
Instantly pulls up to 100 emails daily in under a minute.
Designed with a minimal UI to keep your workflow uninterrupted.
I built Barcode & QR Scanner & Maker a free Android app built for speed. No lag, no waiting when you're mid-payment or trying to get through a gate/access scan. Point, scan, done.
Why it's fast:
Instant detection built on CameraX, tuned for near-zero scan delay
I quit Google last year to re-discover my own relationship with technology and the tech industry as a whole. Rather than create products to take advantage of people's attention, I wanted to find ways to give it back.
Solo founder, been building XenorAI for the past few months an AI sales agent for small ecommerce and service business websites.
Most website chat tools answer questions and report conversation counts. What was missing was real visibility into why visitors don't convert. So I built lead scoring based on intent, urgency, and fit, plus a weekly report on the actual objections behind lost sales price, trust, unclear value, timing.
Curious how others here are handling lead qualification on their own sites manual review, another tool, or just gut feel? Always interested in comparing approaches.
Quick update: SEO Evolution Analyzer goes live Tuesday, September 29 at 12:01am PT. For anyone new here: it's a readiness + citation-testing tool for AI search. Paste in a URL and get a score across AEO (featured snippets), AIO (Google AI Overviews), and GEO (ChatGPT / Perplexity / Claude / Gemini) readiness then we run live tests, sending real buyer-intent prompts to GPT-4o and Claude to check whether your brand actually gets cited, and which competitors get cited instead if you don't. The question I'd ask if I were reading this: "why not just ask ChatGPT myself?" Two reasons - a one-off manual check doesn't scale (you'd need to run it across dozens of prompt variations and multiple models regularly to trust the signal), and it only tells you THAT you're not cited, not WHY or what to fix. We hand back the actual schema markup, llms.txt, and entity fixes-not just a yes/no. Free scan, no credit card required. If you've got questions about the citation-testing methodology, how the score is calculated, or anything else-ask here before the 29th.
A task says done. The next person still needs the decision, the document and the date.
I am Carlos Monzon from Power CM Software, and I am building Borative around that gap. I am looking for people willing to try it with one real project and tell me where the context still gets lost.
Workspace OS brings daily tasks, subtasks, notes, conversations and planning together. Project Hub adds phases, dependencies, timelines, documents and decisions for the wider delivery plan. They use the same Borative account.
My suggested first test is small: choose a project, add its next task, keep the decision behind it close to the work, then check what the next person needs to move forward.
I ve been working on an open-source project called PC Anatomy.
The idea is simple: instead of reading a wall of text about PC components, you can explore a PC visually in 3D, click on the different parts, and learn what each component does.
I wanted it to feel more like taking apart a computer than reading a hardware guide.
It s still something I m actively improving, so feedback, feature ideas, issues and contributions are very welcome.
We entered Synapse MCP into the OpenAI Product Hunt Astra Challenge and started talking to developers. One question kept coming up:
"Isn't this just Graphify?"
Honestly? It sent me down a rabbit hole. If there's already a YC-backed code graph tool with 119k stars and a full engineering team, does the world need another one? Are we just building something that already exists with a smaller budget and fewer people?
