Launching today
Screen startups by evidence
Your deal flow, graded by evidence
10 followers
Your deal flow, graded by evidence
10 followers
An AI analyst for angels, VCs, and accelerators. It reads each inbound application and grades every claim: backed by artifacts, self-reported, or unverifiable as presented — plus red flags and founder questions. Humans make the decisions.
Hi Product Hunt — I'm Vassiliy, solo builder.
AI made starting a company cheap, and it shows in every investor's inbox: more decks, more polished narratives, more specific-sounding numbers. A faster summary of an unverifiable claim is still unverifiable. The question that eats a screener's time isn't "what does this startup do" — it's "what here can I actually check?"
Evidence Gate reads one application and returns a brief:
a proceed / hold / escalate verdict (readiness for review, never an investment view)
every material claim graded — supported in the pack, self-reported, or unverifiable as presented — with the exact artifact that would verify it
red flags visible in the pack: metric inconsistencies, arithmetic breaks, unnamed "major" partners
founder questions ready to paste into your reply
New today: the same gate works from the other side of the table. If you're a founder, run your own deck through it before you submit and see what an evidence-first screener sees — then attach the missing artifact, or reword the claim, before an analyst flags it for you.
What it isn't, on purpose: not a score of how good the startup is, not a factuality checker (it can't tell you a claim is true, only whether it's verifiable and how), not a replacement for judgment. Not investment, legal, or financial advice. Humans make the decisions.
Where it's at: a live demo with two illustrative sample applications and pre-generated agent runs. I'm looking for investors and founders to run a real batch and tell me where it's wrong.
Try it → https://vassiliylakhonin.github.io/evidence-gate.html
Investors: send a batch from your current pipeline. Founders: run your own pack before you submit. I read every reply.
Tried it on a few decks and the grading actually flagged things I would have missed in a quick skim. The founder questions at the end are genuinely useful for the call.
@mervetc6u Thanks Merve — that's exactly the use I was aiming for: catch what a fast skim misses, then hand you sharper questions for the call. Since you're one of the first to actually try it: happy to run a couple of your real inbound decks myself, for free, and send back the full graded output. Just send me the decks (or a redacted version) and I'll turn them around.
how does it handle the flood of ai-generated pitch decks that all look equally polished on the surface
@aysimatruc Great question — this is the core of it. The tool doesn't grade polish, and AI-written decks are all polish. It grades each claim by evidence level: backed by an artifact the deck actually contains, self-reported, or unverifiable as presented. A beautifully generated slide that asserts "$40k MRR, 20% MoM" with nothing behind it lands as self-reported/unverifiable — same as a scrappy deck would. Surface quality is orthogonal to the grade.
On top of that it checks internal consistency — arithmetic that doesn't add up, TAM/growth/revenue numbers that contradict each other across slides — which is exactly where fluent-but-fabricated decks tend to break.
What it deliberately does not do: it can't verify a claim is true in the world, and it won't call a founder a liar. If someone attaches a forged artifact, it grades what's presented. The output is "here's what's actually substantiated vs. hand-waved, and here are the questions to ask on the call" — not a truth verdict. That last mile stays with the investor.
Punched in a few real inbound decks and the grading felt honest, not punitive, calling out which numbers were actually backed by data and which were hand-waved. The red flag section caught a couple of things my partners and I had missed on first read.
@kardelenb989 Appreciate it, Kardelen — "honest, not punitive" is the exact line I kept editing toward. As a thank-you for being early: I'll grade a couple of your real inbound decks for free and send back the full breakdown — backed vs. hand-waved numbers, red flags, founder questions. Send me the decks and I'll run them.