Hey Product Hunt! We launched Concipe earlier this month to help teams turn scattered feedback into buildable specs you can use with CLI Agents and AI Code editors such as Claude and Cursor.
Since then, one question kept coming up: How strong is the evidence behind an opportunity?
So we shipped a few updates to make that clearer.
Every opportunity now shows an Evidence Score from 0 to 100. You can see how many unique voices mentioned it, which sources it came from, sentiment breakdown, and which customer tier is asking.
Concipe
How do you distinguish genuine feedback and prioritise?
Concipe
Hey @viktorgems , great question. Two things: frequency and specificity. Feedback that shows up across multiple sources independently — say, the same complaint in a support ticket, an NPS response, and a Reddit post — gets weighted higher than a one-off. And specific feedback ("I can't export to CSV") ranks above vague feedback ("the UX feels off"). Concipe tracks both signal strength and source diversity before surfacing an opportunity, so you're not just seeing what's loudest, you're seeing what's most consistent.
InfrOS
How do you handle domain-specific language (ubiquitous language) used within the company?
Concipe
Hey @elia_yakin , great question. Right now Concipe works with the language in your feedback as-is — it doesn't impose a taxonomy on top of it. So if your team calls it "workspace" instead of "project," that term carries through into the generated spec. Longer term, custom glossaries and domain-specific labeling are on the roadmap. What's your use case — are you working with a highly specialized domain?