Looking for brutally honest feedback on my AI CV tool before I push harder on growth
Hi everyone,
Over the past few months I’ve been building GhostAI, an AI tool that helps job seekers tailor their CVs to specific job descriptions, identify missing keywords, and improve weak bullet points before they apply.
I’ve spent a lot of time improving the product, but I don’t want to fall into the trap of endlessly building features instead of solving the right problems.
Before I focus on growth, I’d really appreciate some brutally honest feedback:
What’s the first thing that confuses you?
What would stop you from using it?
If you’ve used similar tools before, what does GhostAI still need to do better?
I’m not looking for praise - I genuinely want to know what I’d need to improve for this to become something people would recommend.
Website: https://www.ghostaicorp.com
Thanks in advance. I’ll reply to every comment and implement the best suggestions.
The risk I'd watch for is becoming another "better resume" tool in a category that's already crowded.
Most applicants don't actually want a stronger CV—they want more interviews. The closer GhostAI can connect its recommendations to that outcome, the easier it'll be for people to justify using it over the alternatives.
Thanks, I really appreciate this perspective. That’s something I’ve been thinking about too. The goal isn’t to become just another CV tool - it’s to help people actually get more interviews. I’m working on tying the recommendations much more closely to interview outcomes and measurable improvements rather than just resume quality. Thanks for taking the time to leave such thoughtful feedback.
Glad it resonated.
Your reply made me think there's one strategic decision sitting underneath that shift from resume quality to interview outcomes which becomes much more significant as GhostAI grows, but I don't think I can explain the reasoning properly in a thread without oversimplifying it.
If you're interested, what's the best email to reach you on?
please feel free to reach me on [email protected]
Thanks! I’ve just sent it over.
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts whenever you have a chance.
The "before I push harder on growth" framing is the right instinct, most founders skip this step. On the confusion point: the pitch does not say if GhostAI only flags missing keywords. It also does not say if it rewrites bullet points for you. That difference is what makes people trust an AI CV tool. Or it makes them bounce off. I’d simplify the homepage. Start with one clear before-and-after example. Show a weak bullet next to the GhostAI version. Don’t list features first. The strongest angle is likely ATS keyword matching, since it shows the clearest ROI versus general "improve your CV" tools. If you want to rank your open questions by real signal strength, not guesses from comments, use this workflow. I built it at painbase.space. It helps find what stops signups. It also shows what similar tools do better around.
Thanks, this is really helpful. I agree that the homepage probably needs to show the value faster instead of listing features first.
The before/after example is something I’m going to make more prominent - weak CV bullet on one side, GhostAI-improved version on the other, with a short explanation of why it works.
I also take your point on making the distinction clearer. GhostAI doesn’t just flag missing keywords; the aim is to show what’s missing, explain why it matters, and help rewrite weak bullet points against a specific job description.
Appreciate the feedback - I’m going to simplify the page around that workflow.
The comment above nailed the real problem, the competitor isn't another tool, it's someone pasting their resume into ChatGPT for free. That means the pitch can't lean on having AI, it has to be about a result someone can't get in two minutes on their own, like knowing which version actually gets interviews. Have you looked at what separates the CVs that got responses from the ones that didn't?
This is exactly the objection I need to answer better. The competitor isn’t just another CV tool - it’s someone pasting their CV and job description into ChatGPT for free.
I think GhostAI has to be more than “AI writes better bullets.” It needs to be a guided workflow: compare CV to job description, show what’s missing, rewrite weak points, explain why each suggestion was made, and eventually track which tailored versions actually get responses.
I haven’t yet looked deeply enough at the difference between CVs that got responses and ones that didn’t, but that’s a really strong direction. Appreciate the push.
Naming the real competitor as ChatGPT instead of other CV tools is the right instinct, that's genuinely who you're up against for most users. The case for GhostAI over a raw ChatGPT prompt has to be really concrete, saved history, consistent scoring, something that compounds with use rather than resetting every session. Which of those is the one feature you'd lead with if someone said 'I'll just use ChatGPT'?
Honest take since you asked for it, the thing that would stop me is I cant tell if it actually works. Every AI CV tool claims keyword matching and better bullet points, so that reads as table stakes now, not a reason to switch. Before pushing on growth, I would lead with proof of the outcome people actually want, a real before/after where a tailored CV got past an ATS or landed an interview. Sell "more interviews," not "keyword optimization."
This is fair and probably the biggest thing I need to improve.
“Keyword matching” and “better bullet points” aren’t enough on their own anymore - they’re basically expected from any AI CV tool.
I’m going to focus more on proof: real before/after examples, clearer outcomes, and showing whether the tailored version actually helped someone get past the first screen or land interviews.
Appreciate the honesty - “sell more interviews, not keyword optimisation” is a really useful way to frame it.
Solid concept — tailoring to specific job descriptions rather than a generic "improve my resume" pass is the right differentiator, since that's genuinely the tedious part for job seekers.
A few honest reactions since you asked for real feedback:
What would confuse me first: whether GhostAI is rewriting my actual experience or just reshuffling keywords to game ATS systems. That distinction matters a lot for trust — if it feels like it's helping me misrepresent myself, I'd bail immediately. Being explicit about that boundary in your onboarding or copy would help.
What would stop me from using it: if I couldn't see why it made a suggestion. A keyword flag without context ("add 'stakeholder management'") is less useful than one that shows me where in my experience that skill actually shows up but isn't stated clearly.
What's still missing vs. similar tools: most CV tools I've seen stop at the document. If GhostAI could track which tailored versions actually got responses (even self-reported), that's the kind of feedback loop that would make it genuinely sticky rather than a one-time-use tool.
I'm building Actually Done solo on mobile (life-admin app — bills, docs, health records) and I've learned the hard way that the features people ask for and the ones that actually drive retention aren't always the same thing — so I'd push you to think about what makes someone come back for CV #2, not just whether CV #1 was good.
This is really useful, especially the point about not helping people misrepresent themselves.
I want GhostAI to improve how someone explains their actual experience, not invent experience or stuff keywords into a CV. Making that boundary explicit in the onboarding/copy is a good idea.
I also really like the idea of showing why a suggestion was made - e.g. “this skill already appears in your experience, but it isn’t stated clearly enough.” That feels much more useful than just saying “add this keyword.”
The tracking point is strong too. If users could see which tailored CV versions actually got replies, GhostAI becomes more of a job-search workflow rather than a one-time CV checker. Appreciate the detailed feedback.
The most important thing to nail before pushing on growth: the first sentence of your homepage needs to answer 'why not just use ChatGPT for free' — because that's the first thing every visitor will think, and if the page doesn't answer it fast, most of them are gone. From a sales perspective, I'd also lead with one measurable outcome rather than feature descriptions. '3 minutes to a CV tailored to this specific role' is more convincing than a list of what it does. What does your data show for time-to-first-CV-generated for users who do stick around?
This is a really important point. The “why not just use ChatGPT?” objection has come up repeatedly now, so I clearly need to answer it much earlier on the homepage.
I think the answer needs to be that GhostAI is not just a blank chat box - it’s a guided workflow for comparing a CV against a specific job, spotting gaps, rewriting weak bullets, and helping the user turn that into something application-ready faster.
I also like the time-to-first-CV-generated point. That’s a much better metric than just listing features. I’m going to start measuring how quickly users reach their first useful output and use that to improve onboarding. Appreciate this.
One angle not covered yet: even a perfectly tailored CV is still a self-authored claim, and recruiters increasingly discount those precisely because tools like yours (and ChatGPT) make them cheap to produce. The applicants winning right now pair the polished CV with something they can't self-author: work samples, referrals, references. You can't build all that, but you could position around it: GhostAI as the tool that makes the CV stop losing you the screen, while being honest that the CV alone won't win the offer. That honesty would also fix the hero/FAQ contradiction someone flagged. What does your retention look like after a user's first application round?
This is a really useful framing. I agree - a CV alone doesn’t win the offer, it just gets you through the first screen.
I think GhostAI needs to be more honest about that: helping someone stop losing opportunities at the CV stage, then supporting them with interview prep and explaining their experience properly afterwards.
The retention question is a good one too. I’m starting to think the product shouldn’t end after one CV check - it should help through the whole application round: tailoring, tracking, interview prep, and follow-up. Appreciate this.
Building on the ChatGPT-comparison point others raised: the flip side is that "best AI CV tools" is itself something people now ask ChatGPT and Perplexity directly. So the same free-tool that's your objection is also your discovery channel — if those models don't name GhostAI when someone asks, you're invisible right where your buyer is looking. Worth checking what they actually say before you pour budget into growth.
This is a really good point and something I hadn’t thought about enough. If people are asking ChatGPT/Perplexity for tool recommendations, then being visible in those answers matters just as much as ranking on Google.
I’m going to look into where GhostAI is currently discoverable - directories, comparison pages, public mentions, and SEO content - and treat that as part of the growth strategy rather than only focusing on Reddit/LinkedIn. Appreciate the angle.
That pushback on the name is worth taking seriously, "ghost" already has a strong negative meaning in job hunting specifically, so it's actively working against trust before anyone reads a word of copy. The ChatGPT comparison is the harder one to answer honestly though, what does this actually do that pasting a CV into a free chat tool doesn't, that's the real positioning gap to close first before growth spend makes any sense.
Fair point. The name feedback has come up a few times now, so I’m taking it seriously. I originally liked the “ghosted by employers” angle, but I can see how it may create the wrong association in a job-search context.
The ChatGPT comparison is definitely the bigger positioning gap though. GhostAI needs to show that it’s not just a text box clearly - it’s a guided workflow around CV-to-job matching, scoring, missing keywords, bullet improvement, saved history, and interview prep.
I’m going to add a direct “why not just use ChatGPT?” section because that’s clearly the objection people have. Thanks for being direct.
A direct 'why not just use ChatGPT' section is a smart move, addressing the objection head-on usually lands better than hoping people don't think of it. On the name, worth testing whether 'ghosted by employers' is actually the problem, or if it's more that 'Ghost' reads as spooky or joke-y rather than serious in a job-search context. Those are different fixes. Curious what candidate names are on your shortlist now.
Hi! I love this idea -- just added you on Linkedin..
On /ghost, streamlining "Target Role" AND "Or type any custom role (optional)" to just "Type Role Name" with the option to save will enhance UX.
Prior to the sign up page, I had the option of "Rewrite CV". After logging, I can't find this.
Thanks for adding me and for the detailed UX notes - this is exactly the kind of feedback I need.
The /ghost readability point is useful. I’ll review the contrast/accessibility there.
I also agree the target role input can be simplified. Having both a dropdown and custom role field probably adds unnecessary friction, so combining that into one “type role name” field makes sense.
The “Rewrite CV” issue is especially important - if that option appears before signup but isn’t obvious after login, that’s a broken expectation. I’ll add this to the fix list.
could you tell more to let us try it, i had already made something similar last year but didn't advanced on it ,so i think i could have advices
Thanks, I’d really appreciate that.
The site is here: https://www.ghostaicorp.com
I’m especially looking for honest feedback on the positioning, onboarding, and whether the product feels meaningfully different from using ChatGPT directly. If you built something similar before, I’d be very interested to hear what you learned and what you’d avoid doing again.
On the name/positioning: "GhostAI" sits uncomfortably close to "ghostwriting" and "ghosting employers with AI content" — in a category where employers are already wary of AI-generated applications, this name could work against you rather than for you.
Your headline and FAQ contradict each other: The hero promises to help you "stop getting ignored," but your FAQ says GhostAI "cannot guarantee interviews, job offers, or employment outcomes." That's a fair legal disclaimer, but it directly undercuts the emotional promise at the top of the page.
The testimonials read as fabricated: "Graduate Applicant, London," "Career Switcher, Manchester," "Tech Applicant, Birmingham" — no names, no photos, no LinkedIn. In a market already full of AI-generated everything, anonymous testimonials with suspiciously polished quotes actively hurt credibility rather than build it, whether they're real or not.
"Built in public" isn't actually shown: You reference session analytics and distribution tests, but there's no visible changelog, roadmap, or public build artifact anywhere on the site.
The biggest unanswered question: why should someone use this instead of just pasting their CV and the job description into ChatGPT for free? That's the first thing a skeptical visitor will think, and the site never addresses it — no mention of a proprietary scoring model, unique data, or clear UX advantage over the free alternative.
Minor friction point: you say "free to start, no signup required," but the CTA button goes straight to a signup page.
Thanks, this is really useful and honestly fair.
The ChatGPT comparison is probably the biggest gap I need to address. I don’t want GhostAI to feel like “ChatGPT with a CV wrapper” - the value needs to be in the workflow, scoring, job matching, saved history, and turning the output into something someone can actually use.
I also agree on the testimonials and signup friction. I’m going to replace the anonymous testimonials with real/verifiable ones, make the “free/no signup” flow clearer, and add a proper “why not just use ChatGPT?” section.
Appreciate the detailed feedback - this gives me a clear set of fixes.
before pushing on growth, the thing i'd get brutally honest about isn't the tool, it's whether you know exactly WHO gets the most value and WHERE they already hang out. ai cv tools are crowded, so "push harder on growth" only works if you're narrow - "cv tool for career-switchers into tech" beats "cv tool for everyone". what's the one type of person it's undeniably best for?
This is a good point. I think I’ve been too broad with the positioning so far.
The strongest segment I’m seeing is probably early-career job seekers and career switchers applying to tech/data roles - people who are sending lots of applications but not getting enough interviews.
I’m going to narrow the messaging and test that angle instead of trying to make GhostAI feel useful for every type of applicant. Appreciate this - it’s a useful forcing function.
From the hiring side, I'll add this: keyword-matched resumes get people through the screen, but if it doesn't match how they actually talk about their experience later, that gap shows up in the interview and looks worse than a slightly weaker resume would have. If GhostAI helped people practice explaining what it's highlighting, not just polish the wording, that'd make it stand out to me.
This is a really good point. I don’t want GhostAI to just make someone’s CV sound polished if they can’t confidently explain it later.
One thing I’m considering is adding an “interview explanation” step after the CV rewrite - so if GhostAI improves a bullet point, it also helps the user practise how to talk about that experience honestly in an interview.
That feels like a stronger workflow than just keyword matching. Appreciate the hiring-side perspective.
That interview-explanation step could really be the differentiator. If it goes beyond just phrasing and actually preps people for the "okay, tell me more about that" follow-up, that's usually where people freeze, not the initial line. That would make it feel a lot more real.
That’s exactly the direction I’m thinking.
The CV rewrite gets someone through the screen, but the next risk is whether they can actually explain that experience when asked.
A stronger GhostAI flow could be:
That would keep the CV honest and help users prepare beyond just sounding better on paper.
Really appreciate the push - this is starting to feel like one of the more useful differentiators.
This comment was deleted 24 days ago.