What happened after my AI contract tool post got 70+ comments
A few days ago I shared my project VIDI here - an AI tool that helps small businesses understand contracts before signing.
I honestly didn't expect the post to get so much attention.
The discussion reached 70+ comments, and I tried to reply to almost every one because the feedback from founders and builders was incredibly thoughtful.
People shared ideas about positioning, pricing, trust, and product direction.
Here’s what happened after that discussion:
• The product passed 2,000+ organic visitors
• New users started uploading real contracts to test the system
• Some early users are continuing to use the product to analyze agreements
• I had conversations with founders about how they currently review contracts
One interesting insight: many small business owners don’t think in terms of “contract analysis.”
They think in terms of:
“Am I about to sign something that could cost me money later?”
That insight alone is already helping me rethink how I explain the product.
Still very early, but discussions like this are incredibly valuable when building a product from scratch.
If anyone wants to test the product or share feedback, here is the link:
https://joyful-granita-8415bc.netlify.app
Curious to hear from others building for SMBs - what was the hardest part of earning user trust early on?
that reframing insight is gold, honestly. going from "contract analysis" to "am i about to sign something that'll cost me later" is the difference between a feature description and a pain point. i'm building an AI tool in the ads space right now and had a similar moment, i kept saying "ad optimization" but what people actually wanted was "stop wasting money on ads that don't convert." completely changed how i talk about it. how are you handling the trust factor with people uploading real contracts to an AI though?
That's a great point.
Trust is definitely one of the biggest challenges when asking people to upload real contracts.
Right now I'm trying to keep the experience very transparent - explaining clearly what the system analyzes and focusing on helping users understand risks rather than replacing lawyers.
Also starting with early adopters (founders and small business owners) who are curious about testing new tools helps a lot.
Still experimenting and learning from each user interaction.
2,000 organic visitors from a single post is a real signal — that's the community validating your positioning in real time.
The reframe you described is important: 'Am I about to sign something that could cost me money later?' is the actual job-to-be-done, not 'contract analysis.' That's the difference between feature-speak and outcome-speak, and it usually unlocks the right landing page copy.
On earning trust with SMBs: the fastest path is usually specificity. A tool that analyzes 'contracts' is abstract. A tool that specifically flags payment terms, auto-renewal clauses, and liability caps in vendor agreements is immediately legible. The more specific the contract type and the risk being surfaced, the more trustworthy the product feels — because the user can verify one claim in 60 seconds.
The question 'could this cost me money?' has a sharper version: 'What's the worst clause in this contract?' If your tool can answer that in one line, that's your trust moment.
That's a really insightful way to put it.
The idea of surfacing something like “the worst clause in this contract” is actually very close to how I'm starting to think about the product. Most users don't want a full legal breakdown - they just want to quickly understand if there's anything risky before they sign.
And your point about specificity makes a lot of sense. Instead of just saying “contract analysis,” it's much clearer when the tool highlights things like payment terms, auto-renewal clauses, liability exposure, or termination conditions. Those are the parts people immediately worry about.
I'm still learning a lot from the contracts people upload, but comments like this are really helpful in shaping how the product should communicate value.
Really interesting insight about how people frame the problem.
“Am I about to sign something that could cost me money later?” feels much more intuitive than “contract analysis.” It's a good reminder that users usually think in terms of risk or outcomes, not features.
I'm curious if the early users who uploaded real contracts were mostly founders or small business owners themselves, or if some were freelancers reviewing client agreements.
Also impressive to see 2k organic visitors from a single discussion. That shows there’s clearly curiosity around the problem.
That's a great point.
From what I’ve seen so far, it’s a mix. Some uploads seem to come from founders or small business owners reviewing vendor or partnership agreements, and some look like freelancers checking client contracts.
Interestingly, there are also a few users who started using the tool right after the launch and are still uploading contracts from time to time. And at the same time, new users are still discovering the Indie Hackers discussion and trying the product with their own agreements.
how many files in the limits?
Right now there is no strict limit on the number of files.
Users can upload multiple contracts and analyze them one by one. I'm still experimenting with limits as usage grows to keep the system stable.
The goal is to make it easy for small businesses to quickly review agreements whenever they need to.