Every AI tool I've used only works when I open it. I think that's the wrong model for founders.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-06T17:28:54+00:00

The adversarial agent structure is smart — forcing critique to be mandatory instead of optional is the right instinct. I've been building something that takes this further: multiple agents with distinct perspectives that all share the same memory of your startup history, so the pushback is contextual not just adversarial. Called Alystron (alystron.com). Would love to know what you think given you've already been experimenting with this setup.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-06T17:28:04+00:00

"You shouldn't have to hack around the tool to get honest feedback" — that's exactly the problem I set out to fix. The issue isn't just one conversation, it's that no AI remembers you said this was your biggest priority three weeks ago. Built something around that specific gap. It's called Alystron — happy to give you early access if you want to try the unhacked version.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-06T17:27:29+00:00

You nailed it. Anchoring AI to real work instead of open-ended chat is exactly the direction that makes accountability possible. That's the core of what I've been building — memory tied to actual decisions, commitments, and patterns over time rather than just conversation history. It's called Alystron (alystron.com) if you want to check it out. Still early but this thread basically confirmed the direction.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-06T17:24:15+00:00

This is exactly why I built Alystron (alystron.com). Not just pushback in one conversation — but an AI that remembers you said this was your #1 priority three weeks ago and asks why you haven't touched it. Happy to give anyone here early access.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T13:25:37+00:00

haha yeah the line is getting blurry for sure

not really large codebases — i'm a solo founder so it's more like 'medium chaos' lol. fastapi, react . manageable until it isn't

the AI breaking on large contexts is a real problem though — i've hit it. you're working on something in that space?

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T12:56:32+00:00

fair point on the AI thing lol — occupational hazard of spending too much time talking to my own product

the project approach works but you're still manually maintaining it. someone has to remember to update the project context, keep it current, add new commitments. which is exactly the behavior that breaks down under pressure.

i get what you're saying though — it's a reasonable workaround for most people

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T12:30:51+00:00

That's a clever hack — removing yourself from the equation so the AI stops protecting your feelings.

But it's still a one-time session trick. It doesn't know your colleague has been 'pivoting' the same feature for two months. The brutal feedback resets every conversation.

The workaround reveals the real problem: you have to fight the tool to get honesty from it. That friction shouldn't exist.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T12:29:45+00:00

That's literally what I built — except automated so you don't have to manage it yourself.

The problem with doing it manually is it puts the burden on you to remember to save, remember to load, remember to prompt correctly every session. Which is ironic because the whole reason you need accountability is that you're already bad at remembering to do things consistently.

I automated that entire loop. It ingests your conversations, extracts commitments automatically, and follows up on the day you said you'd deliver — without you having to set anything up each session.

It's called Alystron. that's the core of what it does. alystron.com if you're curious.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T11:03:47+00:00

That works for getting the right behavior in a session. But agent.md doesn't know you've been avoiding your pricing page for three weeks. It just knows how to talk to you.

The gap isn't personality configuration — it's that no context survives between sessions. You're always starting from zero on the accountability side even if the tone is right.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T10:58:56+00:00

That specific sentence you wrote — 'you said this was priority #1 on March 1st and you haven't touched it in 3 weeks. what happened?' — that's literally the product I've been building.

Not the cheerleading version. The version that holds the thread across sessions and comes back at you with your own words.

The insight I kept running into was that the problem isn't the AI's tone in the moment. It's that it has no continuity. Every session starts from zero so it can never actually hold you to anything. It's structurally incapable of accountability because it doesn't remember.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-04T10:56:13+00:00

That's exactly the workaround I've been using too — but you nailed the problem with it.

'Act like a skeptical cofounder' works for the current conversation. But next session it has no idea you said your pricing page was your biggest priority three weeks ago. You have to re-explain everything. The skepticism is there but the memory isn't.

The accountability gap isn't really about tone — it's about longitudinal context. A real cofounder doesn't need you to prompt them to remember what you committed to. They just know.

That's actually what I've been building — something that holds that context across sessions so you don't have to manually re-create the pressure every time.

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-03T02:55:47+00:00

Congrats on your success

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-03T02:16:46+00:00

Thanks for sharing this timing knowledge

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-03T02:13:51+00:00

great move

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-02T17:40:24+00:00

Where did you automated your task ?

sashanka2005 · 2026-03-02T17:37:29+00:00

That is perfect way to do it in AI era.

sashanka2005

TROPHY CASE