Building Nanoloop: error monitoring that writes the fix. Looking for beta users
Hey IH friends,
I'm solo building Nanoloop and could use some early eyes on the product.
I've been a dev for a while and have used basically every monitoring tool out there.
With the adoption of AI tools into my daily workflow, the loop I kept running was:
Get alerted on an error --> open Sentry --> copy the stack trace into Claude --> explain what I thought was happening --> work toward a fix.
The error tool had the error and the AI could write the fix, but nothing connected them.
Nanoloop is aiming to be that missing piece. Paste a script into your app, connect your GitHub repo, and when an error hits, you get a plain English explanation and a fix you can paste into your editor. One line install, works with React, Next.js, and Vue today.
It works end to end, but I'm not going to pretend it's fully polished. The AI nails simple errors and gets hit-or-miss on multi file bugs. Issue grouping is okay but misses edge cases. These only get better with real production errors from real users, which is why I'm here.
Looking for ~10 folks shipping code who'd try it and tell me what's rough. Free tier is 50 AI fixes a month and free uptime monitoring, no CC required. Happy to give beta codes out for feedback.
I'll hang in the comments to chat more if anyone is interested. Thanks!
At the tool level: professional monitoring platforms like Quorum and FiscalNote have deep search, legislative history, and team collaboration. The gap between them and the free or indie options narrows significantly if you only need alert-based tracking for current sessions. goffer.ai sits in the middle - not a full research platform, but the keyword plus sponsor monitoring with tiered SMS and Gmail routing is on par with what the pro tools deliver for the alert use case specifically. If your workflow is "tell me when this bill moves and how urgent it is", the free end covers that. The gap opens up when you need bulk search, export, or historical analysis.
This is actually a strong direction. Closing the loop between error → explanation → fix is where most tools still feel fragmented.
One thing I’d question: “Nanoloop” doesn’t immediately signal that outcome. It sounds technical, but not necessarily tied to debugging or fixing errors.
If someone sees it cold, they might not connect it to “AI that writes fixes from errors” without reading everything.
Feels like the product is clearer than the name right now.
Curious what people latch onto more when they try it — the automation angle or the AI fix itself?