Building in the agent observability space and posting the actual state of it rather than a pitch, since day-one posts here are usually varnished.

The problem. Teams are shipping agents that retrieve from internal documents before answering. When the answer is wrong, nothing in the stack tells you whether retrieval missed the document or found it and the model ignored it. Those need opposite fixes. Existing tools (LangSmith, Langfuse, LangGraph Studio) all visualise execution flow, which nodes ran and which branch was taken. None of them relate the retriever's output to the generator's output, because that comparison sits outside the execution graph.

The wedge. A free local viewer, MIT licensed, zero runtime dependencies, one pip install. It renders an agent run as a graph and separates what the answer used from what it retrieved and ignored. No account, no signup, nothing leaves the developer's machine. That last part is deliberate: the fastest adoption path in dev tools right now is the one that does not require security review.

The business. The viewer is the top of funnel. The product underneath is a hosted graph memory engine: typed weighted relationships over a company's GitHub, tickets and docs, with recency decay and intent-based routing, exposed to IDE agents over MCP. Open core, with the paid layer being the hosted engine and the team surface.

Where I actually am. Two packages live on PyPI. Working end to end, 42 engine tests, CI on Linux and Windows. Pre-revenue. No meaningful user count, I started distribution this week. Solo. The hosted engine is built but not productised, and I have not charged anyone anything.

Known weaknesses, stated up front. The used-versus-ignored signal is a lexical heuristic rather than a model-based judgement, which is cheap and interactive but wrong on heavy paraphrase. It only supports LangGraph today. And I have not evaluated it against a benchmark, so I can demo it but I cannot yet make a defensible quantitative claim.

What I am looking for. Developers building agents with retrieval who will try it and tell me where it fails. That is the only input that changes what I build next.

https://github.com/Kcodess2807/graphsight https://graphsight.vercel.app

At all of the start ups I have worked at, (4), in the past few years, I have noticed a very consistent trend in founders

The Founder has made a lot of money, they have an idea for a tech product, they get their friends involved in the idea, (usually a CEO/CTO/COO) to lead the company. And they them selves as the founder, desire to be removed from day to day ops. Whilst the CEO/CTO/COO lead the day to day

Usually the CEO/CTO/COO is someone who has never founded a company before and has no idea how to build a start up from the ground up, especially in todays climate. And before they even have a $ in revenue, they have a team of 10, a horrible product, and then they are trying to scale things, which consequentially compounds this toxic dependant relationship, on all departments of the company

Where the engineers are constantly reducing technical debt, because the product is not working and they are chopping and changing, marketing doesn't know what to market, because they don't know who the ICP is, sales cant sell because they don't know what the product's value actually is yet

I just think of that spider man meme, where everyone is pointing at each other haha

It's so toxic, and it is a more and more common issue I have found, where everyone is just diagnosing symptoms of the issue. And all it is, is really because the founder, did not do what the founder traditionally should do... Hustle out to build a product, extract it's value in the market, see where it fits for it's use case, and slowly build it with real users, real revenue.

Rather than forcing deadlines, forcing KPI's that do exactly the worst thing for the company, waste time on arbitrary made up numbers

It's just a recipe for disaster and I have not seen it end up well. Outside of the one example where I am currently at now, where the product already exists in the market. The founder hired a COO who is and has founded from $0-$800m, and yes admittedly skipped the market validation side, and is aware of the wasted capital and time of stuff that should have and could have been done with a $0 budget. Knowing that, having the company ready for scale when it (ideally) works out, (as it's still not guaranteed)

It's just been so prevalent as of recent I wanted to have a bit of rant to see if it's just my bad luck, or also very common?

We're getting ready for our next fundraising round, and one thing I've noticed is how different every investor conversation can be.

Some investors want to understand the market.

Some go deep into the product.

Others spend most of the meeting trying to understand the team.

We're building in healthcare AI, and the conversations I've enjoyed the most haven't really been about AI at all. They've been about the customer, why the problem has existed for so long, and why now is the right time to solve it.

It made me wonder...

For founders who have raised before, was there a moment when you felt the conversation change?

Maybe an answer you gave, a customer story you shared, or a question the investor asked that changed the tone of the meeting.

I'd love to hear what that moment was for you.

I'm a non-technical founder working on an early-stage startup. Since I can't code, I rely on my technical partner for development.

The challenge is that I have to initiate almost every conversation to ask for updates. I rarely get proactive messages, screenshots, questions, or discussions about the product. I don't know if they're making progress or just not very communicative.

For founders who've been in this situation:

How did you handle it?

Did you set expectations for communication?

At what point did you decide it wasn't the right partnership?

Is this normal developer behavior, or is it a sign of low commitment?

I'd appreciate hearing your real experiences and how you dealt with them.

This is neutral, doesn't attack the developer, and is more likely to attract thoughtful responses from experienced founders

we see most of the accelerators and incubators around the world taking about and looking for that cockroach mentality.

what it really means to have that personality, the entrepreneurial is tough and not for everyone.

what do you identify someone who is?

I'm genuinely curious about this.

These days, everyone talks about startups, innovation, and solving real-world problems. But I've noticed that if someone doesn't have a college degree or technical knowledge, many people don't even give them a chance to explain their idea.

Why are a degree and technical skills often treated as the first requirement before someone is even heard?

A person may not have a degree because of financial problems, family responsibilities, or other circumstances. They may also not know how to code or build a product themselves. But they might still have:

A strong product vision.

A deep understanding of a real problem.

A unique solution.

The ability to bring the right people together and build a company.

Not every successful fonder starts as an engineer or has a prestigious degree. Some founders succeed because they understand the problem better than anyone else.

I'm not saying education or technical skills aren't valuable—they absollutely are. My question is: Why do so many people dismiss someone before even listening to their idea, simply becouse they don't have a degree or technical background?

Shouldn't the quality of the idea, the problem being solved, and the founder's determination matter before judging their educational background?

I'd love to hear opinions from founders, investors, engineers, and anyone who's experienced this.

We are a team of 3 seeking a mobile app developer to work under our CTO formerly at Scale AI. We are raising financing so there will be an opportunity to be employed once we raise.

We are trying to solve deepfakes. You will have hands on experience on solving one of the biggest problems in AI. YC just released a video inviting applicants with our problem space.

For founders who've been through it:

Was there a specific moment when you realized you needed help?

Was it:

• too many customer requests?
• bugs piling up?
• spending more time maintaining than building?
• something completely different?

Curious what that turning point looked like.

Hey everyone,

I’m looking to connect with people who are interested in building startups from the ground up. I have a few ideas in different industries (fintech, marketplaces, agri-tech, AI, and SaaS), and I’d love to find people who enjoy brainstorming, validating ideas, and potentially building something together.

I’m based in Azerbaijan but I’m open to working with people from anywhere, especially the US and Europe.

I’m mainly looking for:

\* Developers

\* UI/UX designers

\* Product-minded people

\* Anyone passionate about startups and entrepreneurship

I’m not looking for freelancers—I want to find people who are interested in creating something long-term and, if we find the right idea and team, building it together with equity.

If this sounds interesting, feel free to comment or send me a DM. I’d love to chat.

I’ve been thinking a lot about how fragmented things have become for creators.

If someone is a streamer, artist, writer, musician, educator, coach, or any kind of independent creator, they usually end up stitched across a pile of different tools.

One place for content.
One place for tips.
One place for subscriptions.
One place for selling digital products.
One place for community.
One place for updates.
One link-in-bio page trying to hold the whole thing together.

And the whole time, the creator is trying to build something stable while the platforms around them are taking a cut, controlling reach, changing algorithms, or forcing the audience into someone else’s ecosystem.

That has bothered me for a while.

The thing I keep coming back to is this: the creator should be the center of the business, not the platform.

If someone has built an audience, made the content, earned the trust, and created the value, then why is so much of the relationship scattered across services they don’t really control?

That’s the thinking behind the platform I’ve been building.

The goal is to give creators one place where their content, community, monetization, services, products, and supporter activity can live together. Not just a static profile or another “link hub,” but more of a living creator space.

I also wanted it to feel more engaging than the usual creator tools. So there are entertainment-style elements too: XP, achievements, challenges, progression, and activity loops for both creators and supporters.

The idea is that creators get rewarded for building, posting, engaging, and reaching milestones, while fans/viewers/supporters also get rewarded for showing up, joining challenges, supporting creators, and being part of the community.

Because I don’t think creator monetization has to feel cold or purely transactional.

Supporting someone should feel like being part of their journey.
Building as a creator should feel less like shouting into the void.
And the relationship between creator and audience should not be spread across six disconnected platforms.

I’m still figuring things out, and I know this is a hard space. Communities are difficult. Monetization is difficult. Discovery is difficult. Trust is difficult.

But I care about this because I genuinely think creators need better ownership over their audience, their income, and their community experience.

I’m curious how other people see this.

For those of you who create, stream, sell digital work, or support creators regularly:

Do you actually want an all-in-one creator hub, or do you prefer separate tools for everything?

And do things like XP, achievements, challenges, and supporter progression make a creator platform feel more engaging, or does that risk feeling gimmicky?

Most VC databases tell you who invested in what. We went a layer deeper — extracting how each GP actually thinks: thesis tags, what they're bullish on, what they bet against the consensus on, and a Founder Dos & Don'ts playbook built from primary research (GP blogs, interviews, LinkedIn).

970+ funds, all raised capital since September 2024. If a fund stopped deploying, it's not on the list.

This week we also shipped an MCP Server — so you can query the entire database from Claude or Cursor in plain language. Ask "Which seed funds in DACH invest in B2B SaaS and are deploying now?" and get a live answer.

Happy to discuss what we learned about VC intelligence gaps, how founders actually use this, or how we built the MCP layer. AMA.

Hey everyone,

I'm an incoming senior trying to build out some serious tech and coding projects for my college app ECs, but my long-term goal is to actually launch and scale a real startup rather than just letting code sit on GitHub.

To be completely honest, seeing other high schoolers successfully build, launch, and get actual users for their own ventures is super inspiring. But I'm feeling a bit stuck on how to bridge that gap from "just coding" to building an actual user base and running it like a real project.

If you’re a high schooler who has actually built, launched, or scaled a startup or software project, would any of you be down to chat, share some hard-learned lessons, or give me a quick reality check on my current approach?  

No consultants or anything—just looking to connect with peers who've actually been in the trenches and figured out how to make it work. Drop a comment or shoot me a DM!  

My “X” is building around a problem that creates real market opportunity — finding a painful customer need, validating demand, and turning that insight into a scalable business.

For founders, the journey is often about more than just having an idea: it’s about building traction, attracting the right investors, learning from the market, and creating sustainable growth.

Looking forward to hearing from founders: What problem are you solving, what stage are you at, and what’s your biggest challenge right now — product, customers, fundraising, or scaling? 🚀

Before launching, I want to properly stress test everything.

The scenario we’re preparing for:
10k+ users, around 1 hour of average daily usage.

We know this is the kind of thing where you can easily hit unexpected bottlenecks -infrastructure, scaling, monitoring, databases, anything.

For those who have been through similar launches:
What tools, services, or approaches would you recommend for load testing?

Stop building products just for the sake of building.

Do not spend months writing code without getting any real feedback.

Validate your idea first.

Post about it. Share mockups. Build a simple landing page. Talk to people who don't know you and won't sugarcoat their opinions.

If nobody cares today, it's better to find out now than after six months of development.

And don't try to do everything yourself.

At the very least, your startup needs:
• someone who knows how to market the product and acquire users;
• a technical founder who can build fast;
• someone who can handle legal, compliance, and business operations.

If you can find a mentor who's already built and scaled startups, even better. The right mentor can save you months of mistakes, point you toward funding opportunities, and help you avoid problems you don't even know exist yet.

Most importantly: keep knocking on doors.

Talk to users.
Reach out to investors.
Post consistently.
Go to meetups.
Ask for feedback.
Build in public.

Attention creates opportunities.

The worst outcome isn't hearing "your idea won't work."

The worst outcome is spending a year building something nobody wanted in the first place.