Fluxerv
Notes that run code
I launched Fluxerv on Product Hunt and the traffic was quieter than I hoped.
But it exposed something useful: the product needed to get new users to the “working component” moment much faster.
Fluxerv is a workspace where notes can become working interactive tools. In the demo I recorded, I typed /ai inside a note and generated a World Cup-style group standings calculator directly inside the document.
The component runs inside the note:
- score inputs update standings live
- points and goal difference are calculated automatically
- Refine improves the UI without leaving the page
So the lesson from launch day was not “the product is dead.” It was: the first-run experience has to show the core value immediately.
Demo:
https://youtu.be/QFtllFK4ueI?si=q29_jQnR61Uyxt-b
I’d love feedback from other builders:
1. Is the value clear from the demo?
2. Would you use this for planning, teaching, product work, or dev notes?
3. What part of the workflow feels confusing?
Try Fluxerv:
Three months ago I started building a workspace where notes and AI-generated tools live in the same document.
The idea came from a simple frustration: I kept switching between my notes and some AI chat window, copying outputs back and forth. I wanted them in the same place.
With Fluxerv you write a note, ask AI to build something inside it, and the live component appears right there. A calculator, a quiz, a simulator. You share one URL and whoever opens it sees a working tool, not a code block.
Built with Next.js, Supabase, and Tiptap. Solo founder, no funding.
Today is launch day on Product Hunt:
7 Comments
Interesting takeaway.
What stood out to me wasn't the quieter launch, but how quickly you jumped from "traffic was quiet" to "users need to reach the working component moment faster."
Those can absolutely be related, but they're not always the same thing.
Curious to see what you learn after a few more people go through it.
You're right, they're not the same thing. A quiet launch could just be a distribution problem, not a product problem. But since I was watching sessions during the day, I noticed people landing and leaving before they tried anything. That's what made me connect the two.
We'll see after more people go through it. That's the only way to know for sure.
That's fair.
The interesting part is that both explanations can sometimes look true at the same time, especially early on.
That's one of those things I'd be careful interpreting too quickly.
I wouldn't try to unpack that properly in a thread, but if you're curious, feel free to drop your email and I'll send over the tighter version.
That’s a fair point, and I agree it’s too early to interpret it too strongly.
My current hypothesis is narrower: even if distribution was the bigger issue, the first-run experience still needs to make the core value obvious without me explaining it. The main thing I’m testing now is whether a new user can land, create a note, type /ai, and reach a working component quickly enough to understand why Fluxerv exists.
I’ll keep sharing what I learn as more people try it.
I think the interesting part starts after that test succeeds.
A lot of products can make the value obvious. The harder question is what conclusion to draw when it does.
Happy to send over the longer version if useful. Just drop your email.
Thanks. I’ll keep the discussion here for now.
Curious about the short version: once the value is obvious, what signal would you look for next?
That's exactly the part I'd hesitate to answer in one sentence.
The signal itself is usually less interesting than what founders decide it means.
That's where I'd spend most of my attention.