Looking for blunt feedback on a small AI brand-visibility tool
Solo founder building under HanzDevCraft. Right now I’m focused on AI Visibility Monitor — repeatable checks of how AI assistants talk about a brand. Also shipping QATestFlow for simple site/QA checks. Looking for blunt product feedback, not a pitch.
Built a small tool and want honest opinions.
One check across 5 AI assistants: what they say about a brand — score, sentiment, competitors, saved answers. Free: 1 brand + 5 checks, no card. Then monthly plans: Starter €39 (30 checks / 2 brands), Pro €99 (100 / 5), Business €199 (300 checks). Point isn’t “ask ChatGPT once” — it’s repeatable checks with a report so you don’t re-guess every week.
Useful for SMB / agency work, or noise? What would you add first, and what should I drop? Roast welcome.
The score-and-competitor view is useful, but the harder problem for a niche product is figuring out why an assistant recommends someone else instead of you. A score alone says you're behind, not why: maybe nothing about your use case is indexed anywhere an assistant reads, maybe there's no review or comparison for it to point to, or maybe it just defaults to whichever name shows up most regardless of fit. For something like a time-tracking app built around billable client calls specifically, rather than time tracking in general, that distinction matters more than the raw number. Does the tool break down the cause, or is it purely comparative right now?
Fair roast. Right now it’s mostly comparative: score, sentiment, competitors, saved answers. It does not yet break down why an assistant picks someone else — e.g. “no review/comparison indexed,” “generic category default,” vs “your niche use-case isn’t represented.”
That’s the next layer I want: cause labels on top of the score, not just “you’re behind.” Curious which cause you’d pay for first if you had to pick one: missing source coverage, weak differentiation language, or competitor density?
Repeat checks are more interesting than one-off prompts. Have any users actually changed content, positioning, or spend because of what the reports showed?
Honest answer: too early for that proof. I’m still collecting blunt feedback and early checks; I don’t have a clean case yet of “report → they changed positioning/spend → measured lift.”
What I do have is the workflow hypothesis: repeatable checks so you’re not guessing weekly. If you’ve seen teams act on AI-visibility reports, what actually moved first for them — page copy, comparison pages, or paid?
The missing report → decision → outcome case is the key gap I’d be interested in discussing. If you’re open to it, what’s the best email to reach you on?
Sorry for the slow reply — I was tied up and only just catching up on the thread.
Happy to dig into that over email — info@hanzdevcraft.net. Today we give the data layer (score, sentiment, competitors, history) so you can decide; we don’t have a published report→spend/outcome case yet, and I won’t invent one.
(If you email, subject “IH — report → decision → outcome” helps me spot it.)
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.