Idea research for solo founders
A 16-section research report on one business idea, judged against your actual budget, hours and skills — every claim carrying a source, and a verdict allowed to be BUILD, PIVOT, or PASS. Most tools can only say yes. Run against its own operator's real constraints, this one has come back BUILD only 3 times out of 13.
13 reports published · 10 of them came back PIVOT or PASS, unedited
How it works
2 minutes, free. Cash per bet, hours per week, revenue goal, five skill axes. Answer once — every verdict from then on is measured against it.
One paragraph is enough. Already have it written down — yours or someone else's? Attach it instead (markdown, plain text, or PDF) and the research reads that directly, no retyping.
Sixteen sections, live web research, verbatim receipts with links, and a BUILD / PIVOT / PASS verdict. You'll get an email the moment it's ready — nothing to sit and watch.
The problem
This isn't a taste complaint. It's a mechanical property of how these models are trained: reinforcement from human feedback rewards agreeableness, so your idea has potential, and here's how to improve it outscores this will fail because your unit economics don't work. Founders are the worst-exposed group — selected for conviction, and asking in possessive language the model reads as a cue to defer.
“AI is often very good at telling you what you want to hear. This can create the illusion of validation when what you are really getting is a response influenced by your framing and a model designed to be helpful and cooperative.”
Inc. — Diana Bocco, 2026
You cannot fix that with a better prompt — the model will comply with "be harsh" and still find a way to like your idea. It has to be structural, and it has to be checkable:
The record
Every verdict this engine has issued against its own operator's real constraints, unedited. Click through to any of them.
From two real reports
5. The receipts
"Sure, the app 'works' but it's built in a way that only the original dev can maintain — and even that won't last long. And guess what happens next? The original dev disappears…"r/automation · AutomationLikeCrazy · May 2025 · 493↑, 121 commentsRead all sixteen sections →
9. The verdict — reasons to not build
"The graveyard is well-funded. Phantom Auto burned $95M and died in this exact space — teleoperation was written down as a 'bridge technology' by investors. If $95M couldn't make the economics work, $1K won't."Reasons to not build, scored against a sub-$1,000 budgetRead all sixteen sections →
Why the verdict is different
Competitors score an idea against a generic rubric. This scores it against a file you own — cash per bet, hours per week, revenue goal, five skill axes. Change the file and the verdicts change with it.
One report found real pain, a dated regulatory tailwind and a live competitor at $18K MRR — and still returned PASS, because a single overnight staffed seat costs ~$3,400/month against a sub-$1,000 budget.
Reasons to not build has to be the most credible section on the page. A claim without a source is cut, or labelled an assumption in the text.
Each report opens with what was reachable and what wasn't — sources hit, sources blocked, verbatim receipts counted, fabricated quotes always zero.
What $9 buys
If it comes back PIVOT or PASS, the same report can offer a $5 follow-up on a variant it already found — no second research pass. If it comes back BUILD, $19 buys the fifteen-section build roadmap, and unlocks drafting a PRD, landing page, or go-to-market plan for any report, from your own connected agent.
Price
You already pay $20/month for an assistant that will research anything you ask — and agree with all of it. This isn't a second subscription. It's $9, once, for the one research task your assistant is structurally unable to do: return a verdict against you.
| Tier | Price | What it contains |
|---|---|---|
| Single reportMost popular | $9 | One full 16-section report |
| Three-pack | $24 | Three reports, no expiry |
| Ten-pack | $69 | Ten reports, no expiry |
| Variant report | $5 | A follow-up report on an alternative your PASS or PIVOT named |
| Execution plan | $19 | Roadmap for one adopted idea, plus enhanced MCP (PRD, landing page, GTM plan) |
The $5 variant report is offered on the report page after a PASS or PIVOT — no second research pass, so it's $5 instead of $9. Read a sample execution plan →
One-time purchases only. No subscription, no renewals, and credits never expire.
Who made this
I'm Rui Luis. I kept asking ChatGPT whether my ideas were good, and it kept saying yes. So I built something that's allowed to say no — and pointed it at my own ideas first. The reports on this site are mine: run against my own budget, hours and skills, unedited, including the 10 that told me not to build.
Outside the app
Every report and business plan in your account is reachable over MCP (Model Context Protocol — the standard your AI client already speaks), straight from Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or Gemini CLI. Listing, reading, and searching your own reports is free with any account. Buy one $19 execution plan and it also unlocks drafting: a PRD, a landing page, or a go-to-market plan from any report, written by your own agent on your own usage, at no extra cost.
Connect from Settings.
Questions
About 15 minutes, start to finish — sixteen sections with live research behind them. You'll get an email the moment it's ready, so there's nothing to sit and watch.
A hunch is enough — one paragraph on who it's for and what it does. If you already have something written down, attach it instead (markdown, plain text, or PDF) and the research reads that directly.
Yes — list, read, and search your own reports and plans over MCP from Claude Code, Claude Desktop, or Gemini CLI, free with any account. Buy one $19 execution plan and the same connection can also draft a PRD, landing page, or go-to-market plan from any report, written by your own agent on your own usage.
No. Every tool is scoped to your own account at the database level — there's no way for a connected agent to read another customer's reports or plans, and the connection is read-only.
The full report either way: sixteen sections, sourced receipts, and the specific reasons it said no. A PASS that saves you six months building the wrong thing is the point, not a consolation prize.
No. A PASS or PIVOT can name 1-2 concrete variants pulled from research the report already did, and the report page offers a discounted $5 follow-on report on the one worth chasing, instead of the usual $9. No second research pass, so it stays cheap — a no becomes your next report, not a dead end.
The report says so upfront — a coverage line names what was reachable and what wasn't, and thin signal is reported as a finding, not hidden. If generation fails outright, the credit it would have cost returns automatically, no need to ask.
No. Every report and pack you buy stays in your account with no expiry — see the pricing table above.
Any time, from Your profile. Past verdicts keep the constraints they were actually judged against, so an old report still shows what it was measured on even after you update your budget, hours, or goal.
You'll get sixteen sections, sourced receipts, and a verdict calibrated to what you can actually afford to spend and how many hours you actually have.