Founders: what’s the hardest part of finding the right people early on?
Hi everyone — I’m Bahar, part of the team at Hirey.
We’re exploring a product direction around agent-native warm introductions.
The problem we keep coming back to is this:
Finding the right person is still way more manual than it should be.
Not just hiring. Also:
finding a collaborator
finding a technical partner
finding early customers
finding the right intro through your network
Right now the workflow usually looks like:
search → scroll → shortlist → message → follow up → hope something clicks
We’re interested in whether that whole process could be lighter if an agent helped with the heavy lifting, while the user still stayed in control of what gets shared and who they actually connect with.
So the thing I’m trying to validate is not:
“would people use AI for networking?”
It’s more:
where does the current people-search workflow feel most broken for founders?
A few questions I’d genuinely love input on:
When you need to find the right person for your startup, what part is usually the biggest time drain?
Do you trust warm intros more than search/cold outreach? Why?
If an agent could help with this, where would you want the boundary to be?
What would make something like this feel useful vs. creepy or noisy?
Still early, still learning, and I’d much rather get honest feedback now than build in a vacuum.
Would love your take.
I can totally relate to this challenge; finding the right early people is really hard. I actually know a few founders of early-stage startups who would likely be happy to answer your questions on this.
Hey Bahar — this is a really interesting direction. The problem is definitely real.
From what I’ve seen, the biggest time drain isn’t just finding people — it’s figuring out who is actually relevant + reachable right now. Search gives you lists, but not intent or timing.
Warm intros usually win because they compress trust + context in one step. Cold outreach fails mostly because it lacks both.
If you’re thinking agent-first, the boundary (for me) would be:
→ agent can research, shortlist, and draft context
→ but final outreach + what gets shared stays human
Where it becomes creepy is when:
→ messages feel automated or generic
→ or the agent reaches out without clear consent/control
Where it becomes useful:
→ fewer, higher-quality intros
→ strong context (why this person, why now)
→ and visibility into how the match was made
Also curious — are you thinking this as a layer on top of existing networks (LinkedIn/email), or a separate ecosystem?
And btw — I’m running a small experiment with early-stage builders exploring workflow/infrastructure ideas like this.
$19 entry, winner gets a Tokyo trip (flights + hotel). Round 01 is live (100 cap).
Really appreciate this — “relevant + reachable right now” is exactly the distinction I’m trying to understand better. I also agree on the boundary: research, shortlist, and draft context feels useful, but the actual outreach and what gets shared should stay human-controlled.
To your question, we’re thinking more as a layer on top of existing networks first — email, LinkedIn, personal networks — rather than trying to force a new ecosystem from day one.
That makes a lot of sense — starting as a layer on top of existing networks feels like the right move 👍
Trying to replace the ecosystem too early usually adds friction instead of removing it.
The “relevant + reachable right now” piece is where this could really stand out — especially if you can surface why now clearly. That context is what most tools miss.
One thing that could be interesting later:
→ showing confidence / reason for match
So users trust the shortlist, not just see it.
On Tokyo Lore — it’s basically a small, focused round where we put ideas like this in front of real builders and see how they actually respond (what feels useful vs what gets ignored).
Since you’re exploring a pretty nuanced workflow problem, this could be a good way to validate where the real value lands early.
Happy to share details if you’re curious 👍
For me, the hardest part is not only finding people. It is knowing who is actually worth starting a conversation with.
I’m looking for a collaborator for an early-stage communication project, and normal labels like “developer,” “designer,” or “cofounder” are too broad. I need someone who can understand the direction, think with the idea, and help shape it while it is still forming.
So if an agent could help, I would want it to find signs of deeper fit — from what people write, build, or talk about — and then let me decide whether to start the conversation.
I would not want the agent to replace trust. I would want it to help me notice the right people.
This is a really helpful framing. “Help me notice the right people” feels much closer to the problem than “replace trust.” I especially like the point about deeper fit beyond labels like developer/designer/cofounder. For early-stage ideas, the right person is often someone who can think with the ambiguity, not just match a role keyword.