Zaro
Build agents & apps on top of your context with one prompt.
1.2K followers
Build agents & apps on top of your context with one prompt.
1.2K followers
Zaro is where you can build working software from your scattered work. Everything you know is spread across Gmail, Slack, notes, and tabs that don't talk - Zaro pulls it into one place and lets you build apps from it in minutes: your research, your side projects, your plans, your decisions. Then they keep themselves updated, checking your connections every day so you don't have to. No code. No maintenance. No graveyard of prototypes you started and never finished.
The self updating apps both fascinate me and worry me a little. If an app reshapes itself as new data comes in, the thing my team relied on yesterday could quietly behave differently today. For operational work people depend on, can you lock or version an app once it works, so it only changes when you want it to?
Postage.to
@angelika_dev
This is a sharp concern and you're right to raise it. Self-updating is powerful but for operational work that people depend on, unpredictable change is a liability, not a feature. Nobody wants the thing that ran payroll yesterday quietly behaving differently today.
The way we think about it: adaptation should be something you opt into, not something that happens to you. For anything people rely on, you'd want to lock or version an app once it works, so it stays stable and only changes when you decide to update it, with the option to see what changed and roll back if you don't like it. Think of it like pinning a version rather than always running latest.
So the short answer to your question is yes, that control is exactly the direction, stability by default for the workflows that matter, adaptation where you want it.
Lancepilot
Postage.to
@priyankamandal Fair to want the mechanism behind that line rather than just the promise, those claims are easy to make and harder to back.
The honest framing: "gets sharper" comes from the context layer accumulating, not from anything mystical. As you work, Zaro builds up a richer picture of how your team actually operates, what your terms mean, who owns what, how decisions tend to get made, which patterns repeat. So the next thing you build starts from that shared understanding instead of a blank slate. The improvement is mostly context compounding rather than the model itself retraining on you.
Feedback in the more direct sense, you correcting or steering outputs, feeds the same loop: corrections become part of the context it draws on next time, so it stops making the same wrong assumption.
EverTutor AI
Huge congrats on the launch 🎉 Curious what made you build this instead of relying on existing automation tools?
Postage.to
@suryansh_tiwari2 Thanks so much!
Honestly, existing automation tools were where we started, and they're great until you hit the wall. They're built for fixed if-this-then-that workflows. The moment something needs judgment, context, or a step that wasn't mapped out in advance, they break or hand it back to a human.
What we kept running into was that real operational work isn't a clean flowchart. It needs to understand context, adapt, and actually carry a task end to end. That's a different foundation, not a smarter trigger on top of the old model. So we rebuilt the context infrastructure underneath rather than bolting agents onto tools that were never designed for them.
Short version: automation tools connect steps, Zaro understands the work. That gap is the whole reason we built it.
Happy to go deeper on any of this if you're curious.
Zaro
@suryansh_tiwari2 Hey thanks Suryansh!
We determined through working on agents for a while that calling data for existing databases were inefficient and inaccurate. We had to rebuild a database (context layer) to make it really easy for agents to work with. It allows us to do very interesting things such as build end to end apps and tie multiple agents into the application you've just created.
You'll notice that accuracy is substantially higher on the platform compared to others. Let us know what you end up building!
the hard part here is usually retrieval quality, not generation. how are you keeping the agent from confidently acting on stale context?
Postage.to
@sabber_ahamed You're pointing right at the hard part. Generation is the part everyone sees, retrieval quality is the part that decides whether the thing is actually trustworthy, and stale context is the quiet killer because the agent has no idea it's wrong. It acts with full confidence on a decision that got reversed last week.
The principle we build toward is that context can't be a flat pile of text where everything is equally true forever. Recency and supersession have to be first-class, a decision made in last week's Slack thread should outrank the doc from three months ago that it overruled, and the system needs a notion of "this is the current state" rather than "here's everything that's ever been said." That's a big part of why we argue the old vector-store model falls short: top-k similarity has no sense of what's still true, only what's textually similar.
I'll be honest that this is exactly the area where the work is never finished. Detecting that context is stale, especially for soft judgment calls rather than hard facts, is an ongoing problem, and we treat surfacing uncertainty (flagging "this may have changed") as part of the answer rather than pretending we always get it right.
Having the work show up as an editable app or workflow is a strong direction. Agentic tools can feel vague when everything happens in a chat box, so making the output visible and changeable feels much easier to trust.
Postage.to
@farrukh_butt1 You've put your finger on exactly why we went this way. The trouble with everything living in a chat box is you can't see the work, you just get told it happened, and you're left trusting a black box. Turning the output into something visible and editable flips that, you can look at what was built, see how it works, change it, and actually own it. Trust comes from being able to inspect and adjust, not from being asked to take it on faith. Glad that direction resonates.
Postage.to
@imtiaj_ahmad This is a sharp ask, and you're pointing at the right risk. The danger with messy context isn't that the app gets something wrong, it's that it gets it wrong while looking completely certain. A confident-looking output built on shaky context is worse than a hesitant one, because nobody thinks to check it.
So yes, surfacing confidence (and the messiness behind a given output) is exactly the direction we think matters: an app deciding from clean, consistent context should feel different from one stitching together sources that half-disagree, and you should be able to see which situation you're in. Flagging "this is built on solid ground" versus "heads up, the sources here conflict" is part of making these outputs trustworthy rather than just plausible.
Lancepilot
Postage.to
Thank you, that means a lot, and you've put your finger on exactly the thing we bet the whole product on.
The builders you're thinking of are genuinely great at turning a description into an app. The gap is that they start from a blank slate, you bring the context to them. Our bet was the opposite: the context already exists, scattered across the tools you live in, so the real unlock is building on top of that rather than asking people to recreate it.
Whether others move in this direction over time, who knows, but it's a different starting assumption, not just a different feature.
Appreciate you getting what we're going for. 🙌
Postage.to
@odeth_negapatan1 Thank you, that means a lot, and you've named the exact thing we bet the product on.
The builders you're thinking of are genuinely great at turning a description into a working app. The gap is that they start from a blank slate, you bring the context to them. Our bet was the inverse: the context already exists, scattered across the tools you live in, so the real unlock is building on top of that rather than asking you to recreate it. Whether others move this way over time, who knows, but it's a different starting assumption, not just a different feature. Appreciate you getting what we're going for. 🙏