Launching early access for Hirey — would love feedback on positioning
Hi everyone — I’m Bahar, part of the team at Hirey.
We’re opening up early access for something we’ve been exploring: an agent-native workflow for warmer introductions.
The problem we’re focused on is simple:
Finding the right person is still way more manual than it should be.
Not just for hiring, but also for:
finding collaborators
finding technical partners
finding early customers
finding advisors or investors
finding the right intro through your existing network
Today, the workflow usually looks like:
search → scroll → shortlist → message → follow up → hope something clicks
We’re trying to make that process lighter.
The idea is not to fully automate relationships or send messages on someone’s behalf. That would feel noisy and probably creepy.
Instead, we’re exploring a product where an agent helps with the heavy lifting:
researching relevant people
shortlisting based on context
explaining why someone might be a good fit
helping draft thoughtful outreach
mapping possible warmer paths to an intro
But the user stays in control of who they contact, what gets shared, and when outreach happens.
We’re still early, so I’d really value feedback from other founders and builders here.
A few things I’m trying to learn:
Does this problem feel real in your own workflow?
Where does people-search usually break for you: discovery, trust, fit, timing, or follow-up?
Would “warm intro assistance” be a clear enough product category, or does it need simpler positioning?
What would make this feel useful instead of creepy/noisy?
If you were launching this, what would you test first?
We’re inviting a small group of early users to try it and give honest feedback.
Early access link: https://www.hirey.com/agent
If you’re a founder, builder, recruiter, or someone who often needs to find the right people for hiring, partnerships, sales, fundraising, or customer discovery, I’d love to hear your take.
Happy to share more context and learn from anyone who has felt this problem.
the "finding the right person is more manual than it should be" framing is solid, thats a real pain. one thing on positioning though, "agent-native workflow for warmer introductions" is a mouthful, i read it twice ngl. if the core is warm intros without the manual digging, id lead harder with that. whos the first user you picture, founders doing their own sales or recruiters?
I know this problem all too well, it's such a grind. I actually know a couple of early-stage founders who'd likely be happy to answer your questions on this, I could ask them for you.
interesting, I think the" useful vs creepy/noisy" bit is probably the main challenge. Im also trying to get feedback from the right people at the right moment, so the warm intro part idea makes sense to me. The phrase “agent-native workflow” feels a bit abstract though — I wonder if something simpler like “find the right people to ask without turning outreach into spam” would land more clearly?
Are you mainly testing this with founders doing customer discovery, or with recruiters/hiring teams first?
Really appreciate this — that’s helpful feedback. I agree “agent-native workflow” may sound too abstract, especially for people seeing it for the first time.
Your simpler framing is much clearer: helping people find the right people to ask without turning outreach into spam.
Right now we’re testing closest to founders and hiring/customer discovery use cases, but the feedback here is making me think we should be more specific in how we explain it early on. Thanks for calling that out.
Your IH post and your landing page are telling two different stories — and honestly, the landing page has the right one.
The post describes a broad "warm intro" tool for hiring, partnerships, sales, fundraising, customer discovery — five different use cases. But the page says "Hire with Rey — Interviews Booked Without Back-and-Forth." That's one use case, crisply defined.
To answer your positioning question directly: "warm intro assistance" is not a clear product category. It's a mechanism, not a problem. Nobody wakes up thinking "I need warm intro assistance." They wake up thinking "I need to fill this engineering role and I've been doing screening calls for three weeks."
Your landing page already knows this. "Interviews booked without back-and-forth" is a specific pain that a specific buyer (hiring manager, startup founder recruiting) feels daily. That's positioning. The IH post's five-use-case framing dilutes it.
My honest suggestion: don't widen the positioning to match the post. Narrow the post to match the page. Ship the hiring use case, get 10 paying users, collect their language, and then decide whether the product expands — based on what users actually do with it, not what you imagine they might.
On your question "what would make this feel useful instead of creepy" — the page already answers that too: "Rey reaches out, checks availability, and books interviews." That's useful because the human stays in control of the decision (who to hire) and the agent handles the logistics (scheduling). The moment the agent starts deciding who to contact, it crosses into creepy. Your current framing avoids that. Keep it.
This is extremely helpful, and honestly I think you’re right that I blurred two layers together. The live site is much more focused today — Rey is positioned around hiring, outreach, availability, and interview booking — while the broader agent direction is what we’re opening early access around. So the challenge is probably not widening the story, but making the current wedge and the longer-term direction feel coherent.
That's the right framing — "making the wedge and the long-term direction feel coherent" is a much clearer problem to solve than "should we widen the positioning." Ship the hiring wedge, let users pull you into adjacent use cases, and the coherence will come from what they actually do with it, not from what the landing page promises upfront.
This is extremely useful — especially the line that “warm intro assistance is a mechanism, not a problem.”
You’re right. The sharper problem is: qualified candidates getting to interviews without weeks of outreach, availability checks, and scheduling back-and-forth.
That is the wedge. The broader relationship-routing idea can stay as the longer-term hypothesis, but it should not dilute the public story before the hiring workflow proves itself.
Really appreciate the direct feedback.
Do you happen to have an OpenClaw agent set up? We’re testing the early agent workflow with OpenClaw users first, and I’d value your take because you’re seeing the positioning issue very clearly.
The problem is real.
Most people-search tools fail after discovery, not before it.
Finding names is easy.
Figuring out who is actually worth contacting, why they’re relevant now, and what path gives you the highest chance of a real reply is where the workflow breaks.
That’s the real wedge here.
Which also means Hirey may be framing this too narrowly.
This is less “warm intro assistance”
and more “relationship intelligence for high-stakes outreach.”
That frame is stronger because it moves the product out of hiring utility territory and into broader dealflow infrastructure:
hiring
partnerships
sales
fundraising
advisors
That’s the bigger category.
Hirey is clean, but still sounds hiring-first.
If the product expands the way this likely should, something broader like Xevoa.com would carry more weight long term.
Less recruiter tool.
More relationship infrastructure.
I really like this framing, especially the point that most tools fail after discovery, not before it. That said, I think the right move for us is still to stay grounded in a concrete wedge first — today that’s hiring with Rey — while using early access to learn whether the broader AI agent / relationship workflow direction has real pull beyond that. Really appreciate the push on category though, because that’s exactly the tension we’re thinking through.
That makes sense.
The wedge should stay concrete.
But I’d separate product focus from brand ceiling.
You can absolutely start with hiring and Rey as the entry point.
The risk is if the name keeps buyers mentally locked in “recruiting tool” while the product is quietly proving a bigger relationship intelligence layer.
That matters because the first wedge gets you traction, but the brand decides whether people let you expand.
Hirey works for the hiring door.
The question is whether it still works once the product starts touching partnerships, sales, fundraising, and advisor discovery.
That’s where I’d pressure-test the name early, before the wedge hardens the whole company around one use case.