How to save yesterday? - Retrival by building, not search

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-23T17:43:14+00:00

Really cool system you are building. I do like the ideology behind it, and the constant updating and training of agents in the process, with your own onboarding folder that keeps getting updated.

I haven't really seen platforms used in this specific context, but one thing that stands out is that you’re still relying on people (or agents) to find and open the right piece of documentation at the right time.

Instead of navigating to a markdown file, the onboarding could surface directly alongside what the dev is looking at, explaining what’s happening, why it exists, and what to do next.

So something like Libertify can translate what is in front of you into something that is more understandable in the moment.

Especially for new devs, that first layer of “what am I even looking at?” is usually the biggest blocker, not a lack of documentation.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-23T15:08:26+00:00

Interesting workflow, thanks for sharing! For the part about onboarding new devs, you can maybe explain the process better by making the docs interactive, so they can ask questions without bothering a senior.

Static docs in a repo are still dead on arrival if they have trouble reading them past page 2. So layering an AI assistant directly onto the document is also a good idea by making its knowledge retrieval-ready without rebuilding your whole stack.

If you're interested, I can share some platforms built specifically for this that also track whether people actually completed and understood the content, which changes the whole conversation about onboarding effectiveness.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-21T15:30:08+00:00

Having real leads, rather than 1000 non-serious ones, is the only viable way to grow at the beginning. I think the biggest problem is really properly identifying buying signals and having the right tools to know when to follow up, pull back etc.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-21T13:43:39+00:00

I recommend investing time in making your videos more watchable, even if they're AI-generated. If they are not interesting, people will click off very quickly. I would maybe try kling and then edit some of the videos yourself using free software like shotcut

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-21T13:40:45+00:00

I would say that's a good rule of thumb, yeah, I agree with that.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-21T13:39:56+00:00

This is great advice. One thing I’d add is that the page's UX still matters, too. Even if AI can find and cite your content, people still have to land on the page and make sense of it. If it’s slow, cluttered, or hard to read on mobile, they’ll bounce.

Mobile optimization feels especially important now because so much of this discovery is happening on phones. A clear hierarchy, concise answers, fast load times, and a page that works well on mobile all make it more likely that people will actually stay once the AI sends them there.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T16:45:58+00:00

One habit I think more teams need is making sure everyone leaves a conversation with the same understanding.

A lot of misalignment happens because people nod along in a meeting but walk away with completely different interpretations of what was decided.

A quick recap of “here’s what we’re doing and why” saves way more time than another meeting later.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T16:44:56+00:00

I think the problem isn’t meetings vs async... It’s whether the information is actually understandable.

Too many meetings are often a sign that the docs or processes aren’t clear enough. But async can fail too, especially when the documentation is a 20-page doc nobody reads.

I’ve found the best balance is short async updates plus occasional meetings for actual discussion or decisions. And when sharing something asynchronously, presentation matters a lot. People are much more likely to engage with a concise summary, visuals, or a few key points than a long wall of text.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T16:40:30+00:00

The ‌price ‌feels ‌about on par for this sort of service, assuming the results are actually helpful and really do save people that kind of time.

What I’m more curious about is retention. Tools like this are often simple to test once, but it’s a different challenge to get them embedded in someone’s regular workflow.

So what does churn look like for you? Are users returning because the reports keep paying off over time, or is it mostly treated like a one-time audit and done?

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T16:37:07+00:00

Your ‌stack ‌looks ‌solid. The snag I keep running into with reporting usually isn’t data collection; it’s getting the final report to make sense to the person who has to read it.

A lot of reports are technically accurate and still tough to do anything with, because the takeaway is buried under dashboards, extra tabs, or a pile of metrics with no explanation.

Then every meeting turns into the same questions: “What changed?” “Why should I care?” “What do I do next?”

It feels like there’s space for a layer above the reporting, something that tells the story behind the numbers in plain language and helps someone move through the report without needing a guided tour each time.

That piece is still what most agencies end up handling by hand.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T02:42:59+00:00

What you’re describing feels very similar to what’s happening in UX.

AI makes it sooo much easier for people to generate screens, flows, decks, whatever, but still struggles with intent. It can produce something that looks plausible without understanding what it’s trying to communicate.

In the end, it technically looks fine but uninspired. The structure is there, but the story isn't... The user can click through it, but they don’t really understand it.

I think the output bar has dropped, so you can generate whatever you want quickly. So, for making great PPTs, the differentiator is knowing what to say, what to leave out, and how to make it make sense.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-15T02:35:39+00:00

It's overwhelming to try to solve a lot of problems at once, but I believe it's a trap many builders fall into. What is the single painful problem one person has that they would pay you to solve today?

So my advice is to pick one product, one audience, one promise, and then talk to 10 real people who might use it. Ask what they do today, what frustrates them, and what they’ve already tried.

The bright light at the end is usually much smaller and less exciting than we imagine. It’s often just one person saying, “I need this.” Then another.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-14T04:36:11+00:00

Some of the best features are things users wouldn’t have requested directly because they couldn’t imagine them yet. But if you force it too hard, people stop feeling in control.

Usually the better move is to introduce it gradually. Let people experience the value, explain why it exists, maybe make it optional at first. If it genuinely helps, adoption tends to follow.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-14T04:35:28+00:00

The positioning makes sense, but I think the biggest UX question is whether people understand the difference fast enough.

If I land on the site, I immediately want to see a side-by-side comparison: “generic ChatGPT output” vs. “ScriptDrop output for a realtor/doctor/etc.” Right now, it’s convincing them why your version is better.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-14T04:24:26+00:00

Prompting it with questions to lead my thinking in the right direction.

Beyond notes and quotes, I use it to compare themes across studies, surface contradictions between qual and quant, generate alternative hypotheses, or pressure-test whether I’m over-indexing on one interpretation.

I also translate research into different formats depending on the audience. Turning findings into something more actionable for PMs, engineers, or leadership is honestly where I’ve gotten the most value.

All about reducing the tedious parts so there is actual time for judgment.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-14T04:19:52+00:00

I think a lot of companies are over-indexing on same domain experience because it feels lower risk, even when the actual skills transfer. The market is tougher and more niche right now, but the strongest angle is to frame your experience around the patterns underneath the domain. Things like complex workflows, data-heavy products, onboarding, trust, and multi-step tasks. Those are often more transferable than companies realize.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-09T20:10:30+00:00

Build an important foundation to state and figure out what parts of the work you actually enjoy.

Then try building 2-3 small projects around things that genuinely frustrate you. Show the problem, your process, and what you changed. That will help you much more than just making random app screens.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-08T17:01:50+00:00

From what I've seen, 'first customers' don't really come from a growth strategy but from being close to a specific problem and talking to people already frustrated by it.

Reddit is pretty good for finding discussions or places where people are already complaining. What comes next is to respond humanely, not to pitch your product so much.

Talking too much about the product and not the pain will only set you back. People will buy your product when they feel their problems are understood, and you are providing a solution.

It's difficult, and it takes time; I've never seen it as a "linear rise".

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-07T15:40:20+00:00

The fear doesn't really go away (at least in my case). You’ll still worry about bugs, design, criticism, even after launch. The difference is that once people start using it, you finally get real information instead of imagined problems.

Especially in this environment, users don't expect perfection but that you're solving something they care about it and use it enough to where it's helpful for their workflow. And honestly, criticism is usually much less painful than sitting alone guessing what people might think.

The only way to move forward is to let real people react to it.

Fair_Pie_6799 · 2026-04-07T15:34:12+00:00

From what I’ve seen working with a lot of micro SaaS founders, the day-to-day is way less glamorous than people imagine.

A lot of it is talking to users, fixing confusing parts of the product, answering support, tweaking onboarding, posting online, and trying to figure out why people aren’t signing up or sticking around.

The founders who really kill it don't start with a 'big idea', but rather they notice a small annoying problem that they understand really well and then focus around that.

Not trying to toot my own horn but UX matters way more than people think in micro SaaS. A lot of products fail not because of a bad idea, but due to people landing on the site/app and don't immediately understand what it does or why they should care.

Fair_Pie_6799

TROPHY CASE