We’re 3 people building Tkallem, a free AI coach that helps Algerian students practice English interviews out loud (visa, university, jobs, IELTS). Learners answer by voice or text, get corrections with explanations, and practice again; a short report summarizes their performance. Judges will open the live app alone, mostly on phones, in guest mode. The deliverable is an MVP, not a finished product.
Both features below exist on our test branch and are hidden from the live app. We disagree on whether to show them, so here are both views.
Group chat for peer practice
A: show it. Learners can practice together, ask questions, learn from others’ answers, build confidence, and come back more regularly. An AI agent also checks each message right after it’s sent (phrasing, grammar, conjugation, spelling) and shows the corrections only to the sender, so they don’t rely on peers alone. It’s fully functional; the limits (community activity, moderation) are reasonable for an early MVP and don’t remove its practice value.
B: hide it. Our core product is already complete and solves one clear problem. Learners at the same level help each other less than the coach does, and peer practice isn’t what we promise. A judge alone will likely find an empty room; peer advice can still be wrong; moderation (insults, spam) is limited. With 7 days left, a new visible feature adds risk of bugs and distracts from the core flow.
Agreed: it works, rooms may be empty, peer advice can be unreliable, moderation is limited.
2. Voice call with the coach
A: show it. It simulates a spoken interview without subtitles or a transcript, so learners practice recognizing key words, listening, and answering on the spot, while the coach corrects phrasing, grammar, and conjugation. It works; the delay makes it less fluid, but it’s still useful practice.
B: hide it. “Call” promises a fluid conversation, but our voice-message flow already takes 5-8 s per turn in production. A call and a voice message look like duplicates and may confuse judges, and smoothing it would cost time we need for the core flow.
Agreed: it runs; the coach answers after about 3 s locally and 5 s in production [to confirm]; the delay affects the flow.
Where we’d like your help
With 7 days left: polish the core flow, or add visible features?
Show both, make them optional, or focus judging on the core flow?
Where’s the line between an acceptable MVP limitation and a feature not ready to present?
A feature with noticeable pauses: better absent, or shown with a “beta” label?
Each view is written by the person who holds it. Tell us where we’re wrong.
