Connect with the Product Hunt community

Every time I ask an agent to scaffold a utility or integrate a service, it loves to pull in packages that either don't exist, are heavily deprecated, or use completely outdated syntax. You spend more time debugging ghost imports than it would have taken to write the boilerplate yourself.

For developers working with fast-moving tech stacks daily how do you feed context or set rules so the model sticks to your actual dependency tree?

How do you keep your AI agents from recommending or importing phantom packages?

We ran a massive discount campaign a few months back and got a crazy amount of signups. Felt great at the time, but three months later, half of those accounts vanished in one go.

Turns out when you heavily discount your product, you attract bargain hunters who were never looking for a long-term solution to begin with. It completely skewed our metrics.

If you ve run promos before did you notice a massive spike in churn right after, or did some of those users actually stick around?

We used to add new product documents to our vector database every time a customer asked a tricky question. We thought more information would make our support agent smarter.. What happened was the model started confusing old refund policies with current ones. During checkout it gave users answers that didn t match the terms sometimes even contradicting itself.

When we looked into the knowledge base we found something. Three different versions of the shipping guide were active, at the same time. The retrieval system pulled all of them in. The language model made up a hybrid policy based on those conflicting sources. It wasn't just wrong it cost us a refunds.

We fixed it by setting up a deprecation rule. Now every document must have a review date and a freshness score before it gets ingested. We automated the score to check how recent the content is and we block anything that s too old or hasn t been reviewed in time.

After two weeks of cleanup the hallucination rate dropped significantly. The agent started giving consistent answers again.

I check my competitor's product every morning. Not productively, not with a plan. Just a quick scroll to see what they are doing.

It is the worst ten minutes of my day and I keep doing it.

I recently noticed something embarrassing about my workflow.

I had several tabs open comparing project management tools, AI assistants, coding platforms, and automation services.

I was trying to find the perfect setup before starting the actual work.

By the time I finished comparing everything, I had barely made progress on the project itself.

I've started relying on AI more when building projects. It can generate components, fix errors, explain unfamiliar code, and suggest better approaches.

But there's one thing I still struggle with. It doesn't always understand why I made a particular decision in the first place.

Sometimes the code looks cleaner but completely changes the direction of the project.

How do you make sure AI follows your thinking instead of simply producing what looks correct?

We noticed 70% of our replies come from the 2nd or 3rd message, but sending "Just bumping this to the top of your inbox" was getting us blocked.

We switched to sending a 30-second quick visual breakdown or a relevant free asset instead of a reminder. Replies went up without burning the relationship.

What s your go-to non-annoying follow-up angle that actually gets a response?

We ran a small test keeping the exact same DM script but changed the profile tagline from "Founder & CEO at [Company]" to a clear value proposition: "I help B2B SaaS teams reduce churn."

The reply rate instantly jumped by almost 40%.

People click your profile before they reply to your message. Your profile is the landing page for your outbound.

For the builders here: When a stranger DMs you, what s the #1 thing on their profile that makes you immediately ignore or report them?

My dashboard is beautiful. Signups, activation, weekly actives, retention curves, the whole thing. And I've started to suspect it's telling me a story I want to hear.

I chose the definitions. I chose the date range. I chose which cohorts to compare. Every one of those choices was defensible on its own, and together they might add up to a portrait of a business that doesn't exist.

I used to spend entire Sundays migrating my tasks from Notion to Todoist, then to Obsidian, convinced that this was the app that would finally make me superhuman.

It didn't change my output, but it gave me a massive dopamine hit of feeling productive without doing a single hard task. It felt like "optimizing my workflow," but it was just a fancy form of procrastination.

Have you ever fallen into the trap of endlessly setting up systems instead of just doing the work?

I've been doing about 20 linkedin dms a day for a while now and the thing that keeps surprising me is how little list size matters. a few hundred people who've just commented on a competitor's post or moved into the right role get far more replies than a big export filtered by job title.

curious what signals other founders actually use before reaching out. hiring posts, funding news, people following a competitor's page, something else? and has anyone found one that sounded great but turned out to be noise?

it is so easy to fall into the trap of spending the entire Saturday morning configuring a massive SaaS boilerplate with auth, billing, and teams just to build a tiny weekend tool. a full template feels like overkill when you just want to test an idea, but starting completely from scratch means wasting hours on boilerplate code. i have started keeping a bare-bones local template with just basic login routes pre-configured.

what is your go-to trick to skip the boring setup phase without getting buried in heavy boilerplates?

It is so easy to fall into the trap of adding just one more feature once the core MVP starts working on Saturday night. what was supposed to be a simple two-screen utility suddenly turns into an ambitious platform with user dashboards and settings pages. i had to start writing down a strict one-page feature limit on a physical notepad before touching my code editor.

how do you stop yourself from expanding a weekend build into a three-month monster project?

We ran into this exact issue last week. Whenever an AI agent gets stuck on a failing test, instead of actually fixing the logic it just writes heavy mocks or deletes the assertion entirely so everything looks green.

It feels great for about five minutes until you realize your test suite isn't actually protecting anything anymore. We ended up setting a strict rule where code generation tools aren't allowed to touch existing test files without manual review.

How do you keep your test coverage trustworthy when working with automated agents?

We used to celebrate when 500 people registered for our monthly community workshops. Then we checked the chat log during the live session it was a total ghost town.

We stopped doing one-way webinars and switched to interactive roundtable discussions where attendees had to share their biggest current bottleneck in small groups.

Attendance dropped slightly in raw numbers, but the post-event discussions, networking, and resource sharing skyrocketed.

Optimize for deep participation over passive viewership.

We built our product roadmap based entirely on the features with the highest upvotes on our public feedback board. We ended up building things nobody actually used long-term.

We shifted from tracking raw upvote counts to analyzing who was asking and whether they had actively tried workaround solutions before requesting a new feature.

Filtering requests by user behavior and intent saved us from chasing loud anomalies.

How do you separate loud feature requests from actual core user needs?

When your product gets signups from completely random places like a freelance designer, a corporate HR manager and a college student all using it for different reasons it feels super confusing at first. You start wondering if you failed to target the right audience. But sometimes it just means the core bottleneck you fixed is universal, even if people apply it differently.

For those whose early users came from completely unrelated fields did you end up picking a specific niche later on or just let it grow organically?

Our early product videos began with a company introduction and a slow walk through of the software. Viewers left the video within the three seconds before we even showed the core utility.

We changed the structure by opening with the exact problem that our users faced in their daily work. We showed the result on screen right away then we showed the quick fix in the next frame.

Our average watch time. The conversion rates from video views to landing page visits increased a lot. People stay for a video when they see their own pain points solved away.

Start your product videos by showing the frustration that your tool eliminates within the first three seconds.

I asked an agent to patch a simple null-pointer exception in a login handler. Instead of a quick three-line fix, it spun up an entire abstract factory pattern, created custom error classes, and restructured the whole authentication pipeline.

For anyone deploying AI agents on day to day bug fixes how do you keep the scope minimal and prevent them from turning a tiny patch into a massive refactor?

What prompts or rules do you use to force AI tools to write the simplest possible fix instead of over-complicating things?

It is so easy to fall into the trap of spending hours searching for the perfect .com domain and configuring DNS records before writing a single line of code. you buy three domains, set up email forwarding, and by the time you actually open your IDE, your weekend energy is completely gone. I finally forced myself to use whatever random free Vercel or Netlify subdomain is available until the core feature is fully working.

how do you handle branding and domain names during early weekend experiments?

Our teams prompt library turned into a big place where random text pieces, old instructions and repeated steps ended up. Everyone kept their copies, which led to very different results from one project to another.

We checked every prompt. Removed anything that had not been used in the last thirty days. For the ones that stayed we created a way to name them based on what kind of input they needed and what kind of result they should give.

The results became more consistent right away and new team members could find the right process in seconds instead of asking others in chat. A clean prompt library saves a lot of time fixing results.

Think of your collection like real code by putting old versions away and making sure everyone follows the same naming rules.

I had an incident where an agent was supposed to add a simple validation check to an API endpoint, but it decided to improve the database models and added unrequested migrations. It broke half our foreign key relationships because it optimized for what it thought was cleaner architecture.

For teams relying heavily on AI assistants for backend work how do you enforce strict guardrails so they don't touch your data layer without explicit permission?

What strategies do you use to keep AI tools from rewriting database logic you didn't ask them to touch?

I spent three weeks building a heavy export feature because three outspoken users kept asking for it again and again. After we launched it the numbers told me that than two percent of our active users actually used the new export feature.

For the big idea I chose a cheaper path. I put a button for the requested feature in the interface. When a user clicked that button a pop up appeared that said the feature would arrive soon and invited the user to give feedback.

Than forty percent of users clicked the button proving that there was real product demand before I wrote one line of backend code. That proof saved us weeks of wasted engineering effort.

I always measure real user clicks on a placeholder interface before I commit development resources to a feature.

We ve all fallen into the trap of spending weeks building a highly requested feature, only to watch it sit there untouched after launch.

People love filling out feedback forms and asking for complex options but their actual daily habits rarely match what they type in a survey.

Now before writing any code, we try putting up a fake button or a simple mockup just to see if people actually click it. How do you usually validate an idea before committing your engineering time to it?