I built PulseBoard because I wanted an uptime monitor that explains outages, not just reports them
Hi everyone! đź‘‹
After months of building, I'm excited to finally share PulseBoard.
Like many developers, I found myself receiving alerts that simply said, "Your website is down." The next few minutes—or sometimes hours—were spent digging through logs, checking deployments, and trying to figure out what actually happened.
That frustration led me to build PulseBoard.
Instead of only detecting outages, PulseBoard helps you understand them with AI. It monitors websites and APIs, performs AI-powered incident analysis, automatically generates postmortems, publishes them to public status pages, and includes Vigil, an AI assistant with voice support for investigating incidents.
I'm still actively improving the product, and I'd really appreciate honest feedback from the Indie Hackers community.
What would make an uptime monitoring platform valuable enough for you to switch from your current solution? I'd love to hear your thoughts.
You can check it out here: https://pulseboard.haseeb.work
I like that you're shifting the product from alerting to understanding.
Most monitoring tools are good at telling you that something broke. The harder problem is helping teams regain confidence in what happened and what to do next. That's a much more valuable outcome than another notification.
Thank you Aryan , I really appreciate that perspective.
That's exactly the direction I'm aiming for with PulseBoard. Alerts are important, but they're only the starting point. The bigger challenge is helping teams quickly understand what likely happened, communicate it clearly, and move toward a resolution with confidence.
Your point about "regaining confidence" really resonates with me. That's a great way to think about the problem, and it's something I'll keep in mind as I continue building the product.
Interesting.
Reading your reply made me think less about incident understanding itself and more about what the product quietly commits itself to once teams begin relying on it to restore confidence during uncertainty instead of simply delivering alerts.
I don't think I can explain that line of reasoning properly in a thread without oversimplifying it.
If you're interested, what's the best email to reach you on?
I'd definitely be interested in hearing your thoughts.
You can reach me at haseeb@haseeb.work. Looking forward to reading your perspective—it sounds like you've been thinking about an angle I haven't fully considered yet.
Thanks for taking the time to continue the conversation!
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.
Congrats on shipping, Haseeb. To answer your question directly: the thing that would make me switch is trust in the postmortem quality, not the detection speed. Every uptime tool detects outages fine now; the real gap is whether the AI explanation actually matches what happened or just sounds plausible. If Vigil can catch a false positive on its own analysis and flag it as uncertain instead of guessing, that is the feature that gets me to move my current stack over.
I do product testing and research on early tools like this, happy to run PulseBoard against a few real incident scenarios and give you a breakdown of where the AI analysis holds up versus where it guesses. No pitch, just useful if it helps you validate the postmortem accuracy angle.
Thanks, Samuel—I really appreciate you taking the time to leave such thoughtful feedback.
Your point about trust in the AI explanation versus detection speed really resonates with me. That's exactly the problem I'm trying to solve with PulseBoard. I especially like your idea of having the AI explicitly communicate uncertainty instead of forcing a confident answer when the evidence isn't strong enough. That's something I'll definitely explore.
I'd be happy to have you run PulseBoard through a few real incident scenarios. Honest feedback on where the AI analysis is accurate, where it struggles, and where it overreaches would be incredibly valuable at this stage.
Thanks again for offering to help—I look forward to hearing your findings.
Glad this is useful, Haseeb. To make the feedback as sharp as possible, a few things I will need from you:
Access to PulseBoard (staging or live, whichever you prefer me testing against)
Two or three incident scenarios you would consider realistic for your target users (for example, an API outage, a slow degradation, a false alarm), so I am testing against situations you actually care about, not ones I invent
Any existing example postmortem Vigil has generated, so I have a baseline to compare against
I will run through each scenario, document where the AI analysis holds up, where it struggles, and where it overreaches, and put together a short written breakdown plus a walkthrough video of the process end to end, the kind of thing you could use on your landing page or in onboarding if it turns out well.
Given this is early feedback, and I am doing it because I think the postmortem angle is genuinely worth solving well, I am not charging for this first round. If it is useful and you want a deeper pass later (broader incident coverage, ongoing testing as you ship), we can talk about what that looks like then.
When works for you to get me access?
Thanks, Samuel. I really appreciate you taking the time to do this.
I'll prepare a dedicated demo account for you to test PulseBoard. I'll also carefully think through the incident scenarios and edge cases that would be most valuable for evaluating Vigil's analysis quality, rather than sending random examples.
I'll put together the relevant context, sample incidents, and existing postmortem examples so you have a proper baseline to test against.
I'll reach out once everything is ready with the access details. Looking forward to your feedback and insights.