Four blind reviewers try to kill your idea. Before the market does.

You write your idea on one page: who has the problem, in what moment, who pays, what evidence exists. Four AI reviewers read only that page, never see each other, and attack from four directions. You get one verdict and the cheapest next test. The first thing the tool blocked was its own launch.

View on GitHub

Outcome & Premise

Is this a real, valuable problem, or just an interesting feature?

Lifecycle & Mechanism

What triggers use, what brings customers back, what makes them leave?

Authority & Boundary

Who has the problem, who decides, who pays, who blocks?

Evidence Validity

Does the evidence prove demand, or only attention and politeness?

What it can do, and what it cannot

Four real decisions from our own business as a backtest: 4 of 4 verdicts correct, the real reason found blind every time.
A single brutally honest chat scored 3 of 4. So the tool is not proven better than a chat. It gives what a chat cannot: four independent votes, a frozen case, and a logbook nobody quietly rewrites.
The hardest step is the one page with evidence. Whoever can write it needs the tool least. That is exactly where we help.
A verdict is a sharp second opinion, not market proof. Only the tests it prescribes deliver that.
Not a substitute for advice; no liability for decisions based on its output.

Together, not alone

We write the case with you and run the four reviewers.

The submission form opens shortly. Until then the complete tool is free on GitHub: instructions, every prompt, and an example case you can run yourself.

View on GitHub