On Indie Hackers, we talk a lot about what gets built.
Products shipped.
Features launched.
Revenue charts going up (or not).
But every meaningful thing I’ve ever built — or failed to build — was decided before any of that happened.
Not in code.
Not in tools.
In the way the idea was structured in my head.
Most ideas don’t die because they’re bad.
They die because they stay vague.
An unstructured idea feels exciting, but fragile.
You can’t reliably come back to it.
You can’t test it.
You can’t build on it.
Once an idea becomes structured, something changes.
It stops being inspiration and starts being usable.
That structure might look like:
At that point, execution becomes less scary. Sometimes it even feels inevitable.
We love MVPs, but every MVP has a predecessor: a mental prototype.
Before you ship anything, you’ve already decided:
Founders who build repeatedly aren’t just good at shipping — they’re good at organizing thought.
They don’t start from zero each time.
They reuse internal systems.
Not everything you build ends up on Product Hunt.
Some of the most important work happens internally:
You don’t stumble into a better version of yourself.
You design one — slowly, imperfectly, but deliberately.
While thinking about all this, I've built Lumra — a small tool centered around treating prompts and structured thinking as evolving systems instead of disposable inputs.
Not as a productivity hack.
Not as a magic solution.
Just a way to make the invisible part of building — the thinking, the framing, the structure — a bit more concrete and reusable.
Execution gets most of the credit.
But coherence comes first.
If you’re stuck, it might not be because you’re lazy or unmotivated.
It might just be that the thing you’re trying to build hasn’t been fully built in your head yet.
And that’s okay.
That’s part of the work.
Curious how others here approach this — do you deliberately structure your thinking, or does it mostly stay intuitive?
One thing I’ve struggled with in practice is knowing when to stop exploring and force structure, and then being willing to revisit that structure as new information shows up.
In a lot of the systems I’ve worked on, the initial exploration phase is necessary to surface assumptions, but it’s also where ideas stay comfortably vague. The hard part isn’t exploration or execution. It’s in committing to a first explicit model, seeing where it breaks, and refining it without slipping back into intuition.
What’s worked best for me is treating structure as provisional rather than final: something you intentionally lock in for a period, learn from, and then revise. Curious how you decide when an idea is “structured enough” to move forward.