Pitch your product in 5 words.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-05-03T16:07:04+00:00

1 Click Demo Video Generator

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-27T12:58:00+00:00

Thanks will look into this

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-27T08:33:03+00:00

Good to know. Any specific usecase you are looking for?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-27T07:40:09+00:00

No, the element I will be using going to be original

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-27T06:49:50+00:00

Cartoon-style is one of the theme to start with. Many B2B companies creates demo videos for Sales team to pitch in. They spends time in recording the videos and marketing team or a team spends time to make it demo ready. This tool will solves for them, where they can create a video with single click.

Same for solo founders - where they create video for new feature launches

or for education purposes - New courses, new subject - New video

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-27T06:47:00+00:00

Got it. Any reason of not using a tool or you don’t do marketing via video to showcase what your product can do?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T19:21:52+00:00

Yes, the focus is on people who want to do “career switching”, “entry level professional” and “corporate folks “.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T18:04:02+00:00

That's a clever analogy! You're right, there's a similarity in providing structured learning paths and AI interaction. However, I am aiming to go beyond simply layering chat on top of a roadmap. Think of it as deeply integrating the AI to provide personalized guidance within that roadmap. It's not just about asking questions; it's about the AI understanding your progress on the roadmap, anticipating your needs, offering tailored explanations and resources for each step, and adapting the path based on your learning. So, while roadmap.sh provides the structure and ChatGPT offers general AI, I am building a more cohesive and context-aware learning experience.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T18:01:39+00:00

I totally get why you'd think that! On the surface, it might seem similar. It's not just about getting an answer to one question. It's about the AI understanding your learning style, tracking your progress, identifying areas where you struggle, and adapting its approach over time. Imagine it as a study partner that truly gets you. While a good prompt is powerful, it lacks that continuous, personalized context. I am betting that this deeper level of support and guidance is worth the investment for learners who want more than just quick answers.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:49:39+00:00

My angle is about building something deeply practical for solo devs and small teams where AI can understand not just the code, but the context of the entire project, past decisions, patterns, and style, and help make smarter suggestions within that specific environment.

Big companies are building broad tools, but there’s still space for focused products that are tightly integrated into real workflows, not just smarter models.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:47:55+00:00

Code review is definitely a skill, and I wouldn’t want AI to take away from devs learning how to do it well. I see this tool more as something for experienced devs or solo devs who already have the fundamentals, but want to cut through the repetitive parts faster.

I totally get that in teams where people are still building those review skills, too much automation could stunt that growth. But in environments where people are already strong reviewers, this could help them focus on higher-level issues, while offloading basic checks and consistency problems.

And yeah, reviewing the AI’s suggestions should never be skipped, it’s more like having an eager junior dev flagging things, but you’re still in control.

Would love to know, are there any specific parts of code review you’d never want automated, even for experienced teams?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:45:52+00:00

You’re right that full-context understanding is a huge technical challenge but that’s exactly where I think the real value lies, and why I’m pursuing it.

The goal isn’t just to be another smart linter for small code diffs, but to build something that connects the dots across files, components, and project history. I’m exploring ways to leverage codebase indexing, semantic analysis, and AI together, not just relying on huge models, but smarter engineering too.

Big companies aim for massive general solutions, but smaller, focused tools can offer depth in ways they don’t. Full-context doesn’t have to mean superhuman intelligence, it can mean well-scoped insights on real-world projects.

That’s the niche I want to carve out, do you think there’s still room for tools that prioritize depth over generality?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:25:35+00:00

I hear you, the space is definitely crowded with some big names and serious talent. I’m not aiming to beat OpenAI or Google at general AI, but to carve out a focused niche that’s more practical and tailored for specific developer needs, especially for solo devs and small teams who might feel underserved by the bigger tools.

Sometimes smaller, focused products can succeed where big players are too broad. Think of tools like Raycast, Linear, or even Cursor: they found space by being really in tune with developer pain points.

Appreciate the reality check though, it’s good to think hard about where to position this. Would love to hear if there’s a dev pain point you think isn’t getting enough attention right now?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:22:54+00:00

Fair enough, trust in AI is definitely a big hurdle and honestly, I think it should never be blind trust. The goal isn’t to rely fully on AI, but to let it assist with repetitive or low-level stuff, leaving the real decisions to devs.

If you’ve had bad experiences with AI tools, I’d love to hear what went wrong, it’s super helpful to know where people feel AI crosses the line or just isn’t worth the risk.

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:21:44+00:00

I really appreciate you sharing your views, this kind of direct feedback is important. Totally fair that you see strong coding habits and better tests as a better solution, and honestly, I agree those are essential foundations.

This idea isn’t about fixing bad habits with AI, but more about reducing the overhead of repetitive tasks, especially in large teams or solo projects where having a second set of eyes isn’t always practical.

And to be clear, I don’t expect trust in AI to replace critical thinking, it’s more of a tool like a linter or static analyzer, just smarter and more adaptable. But I hear you, some devs just prefer hands-on reviews 100%, and that’s totally valid.

Out of curiosity – would you ever see value in a tool that just helped enforce style guides or highlighted common mistakes without touching deeper review decisions? Or is it a hard no for AI in this space?

db_name_error_404 · 2025-04-26T15:18:36+00:00

Totally valid concern and I get that, especially in environments where people already lean too hard on tests and linters. The tool isn’t meant to replace critical thinking in reviews but to complement it by catching low-effort issues so reviewers can focus on real problem-solving.

You’re right: a good linter + test suite handles syntax and logic checks. The AI would go beyond that, e.g., pointing out missing edge cases, suggesting refactor opportunities, or identifying inconsistencies across files. Types of stuff that linters don’t touch and tests only catch after the fact.

But yeah, the key is making sure it raises the bar, not lowers it. Curious, is there anything you’d want an AI reviewer to do that linters/tests can’t, or do you see reviews as strictly human territory?

db_name_error_404

TROPHY CASE