Hot100.ai

@makwarth Thanks — really appreciate that. And yeah, we’re launching on Product Hunt of all places, which isn’t lost on me 😄 PH is a great place to share new work and its the OG.. We want the chart to reflect quality and originality, not just who can rally the biggest crowd on launch day and who their network is.

We know from experience the work that goes into GTM and all the things happening behind the scenes to help ideas and products get eyeballs. Vibe Coding and all of these new tools has kicked the door down in terms of who can make their ideas come to life now. Time for something new.

I wanted with this approach to try and level that field for the new generation.

That’s the idea.

@m91michel Hi Mathias, thanks for the question. We don’t do strict verification. When someone submits, they share their stack (Cursor, v0, Replit etc.) along with the meta data in the submission form. What I've seen is a real quality in the info builders share at this stage. This helps.

Flambo looks at the project itself and the submission context, so if the story, the stack, and the end result don’t line up, it just won’t score strongly. Thats one part. It’s more about consistency and craft signals.

And on top of that, I personally review every project right now. So there is still a human eye making sure the vibe stays genuine and the work feels real. No gatekeeping, just making sure good craft gets seen.

Does that answer your question?

@neilswmurray Flambo runs on gpt-4o-mini with a low temperature (0.25), so the scoring stays consistent.

Every project gets evaluated with the same structured prompt.

It looks at a few things:

• what the project does and how it’s described

• the problem it’s solving

• the tools used to build it

• and whether there’s a live product to try

It doesn’t dig through repos or do anything heavy like that. It’s judging based on what’s submitted and how well the story and the end result line up. The scoring is two parts:

• Innovation — is this bringing something new or interesting?

• Utility — is it actually useful, clear in purpose, and understandable?

Both are scored on a 1.0–10.0 scale.

There are also some light adjustments. For example:

• small bonus if it’s live and easy to try
  Also bonus if the project has been security checked by the builder.

• small penalty if it’s just a waitlist or extremely vague

Final score is simply the average of Innovation and Utility, rounded to one decimal place.

For the chart, Flambo’s score is the main signal. Human votes are there too, but they act more like momentum than the deciding factor. But they can and will swing scores that are tied etc, tbh I've tweaked the scoring model a few times in Beta. Expect to keep doing that when appropriate.

And for now, I’m still reviewing every project myself. Just keeping an eye on quality and making sure the whole thing feels right as it grows.

Appreciate the question!

@rvlt_tv Scoring on utility sounds obvious, but you’re right, its tricky. The way we’ve handled it is to break it down into simple, consistent checks. Flambo isn’t trying to diagnose code deeply or judge “taste.”
It just looks at what the thing does, how clearly the problem is defined, and whether the execution matches the intent. In the future, you could imagine further work being done to 'prove the utility', but not yet.

On the brand/tool bias question — yes, big names absolutely create gravity. What ive seen so far is that there are the foundational models / 'big 4' that are leading the way in terms of uptake, more projects/builders mention OpenAi i.e, obvs @Lovable is super popular of course but doesn't actually feature a lot across our site. Its early days, what I'm seeing is that its become a 'Stack Sport' and I think thats still playing out.

Thoughtful question, cheers, Helder.

@martin_schultz totally! I think that data insight is valuable and interesting. Understanding how consumers build with these tools, its all a new data set, somewhat. We've had 400+ project submitted to date and there are patterns emerging. I've got an

and the plan is to send weekly newsletters with some of this telemetry. I did a little bit of analysis last week and pulled a couple of slides together, which I can share here. Thanks again for the invite to the Meetup - happy to come back and talk about how the launch goes etc when there is a spot : )

@soopert Ah, Tom : ) There's a question. I actually have not tested that, in total honesty. But I will endeavour to run that test for you. It has been interesting tweaking things along the way to arrive at a tone of voice (and scorecard) that feels helpful, constructive, but also has a pov on what scores highly. Agreed, moving super fast, exciting times.