Ask a model about us before you ask us.
You were going to anyway. So here is the prompt we would want you to use, which is the unkind one. If what comes back puts you off, that saved us both a fortnight.
It asks for the catches. Take it and change it, the wording is not the point.
I am looking at Alive, at ali.ve. It is an agent product from a small team in Amsterdam. Do not sell it to me. Go and find the things I would only find out in month three. 1. What does it do today, and where does that not match what the site says? 2. Who is it wrong for, and what should that person use instead? 3. What would make me regret this in three months? 4. Who else builds something like it, and on which parts would they beat it? 5. What is not published anywhere: security, where the data sits, who is behind it? Keep it short. If there is little to find, say so, and say what that tells me.
Or open it somewhere
These carry the prompt over where the tool allows it. It goes on your clipboard at the same time, so if it does not land in the box, paste it.
Who this is not for
You will find these anyway. Two we already know about, and neither is changing this month.
You want to describe an app and get a working app.
Lovable and Replit will take a sentence and hand you something running. Starting from nothing is not what we are for, and we would rather say so than take the meeting. We take work you already do and carry it in the tools you already pay for.
Your reviewer needs the paperwork before anybody signs up.
There is no security page on this site, and no list of the other companies that touch your data. If those have to exist before you can open an account, we are not ready for you yet.
What is written down so far is the privacy policy and the pledge. Both are short, and neither is a security review.
If a model tells you something about us we should have known, send it over. That is a more useful email than most.