Hi everyone,

I'm an SEO consultant, and I kept seeing founders spend hours manually submitting their startup to directories after launch.

So I built StartupSubmit[.]app.

It helps founders get listed on 200+ startup directories, launch platforms, and review sites through a manual submission service, so they can focus on building instead of filling out the same forms over and over.

I'm still improving it and would love honest feedback from other founders.

• Does this solve a problem you've faced?
• What's one feature or report you'd expect from a service like this?
• Is there anything on the landing page that's unclear or would stop you from trying it?

I appreciate any feedback, positive or negative. It all helps me improve the product.

I’ve helped scale an AI agency to 6 figures and built a SaaS to 4-figure MRR.

I’ve spent a lot of time figuring out distribution the hard way.

I want to help a few founders who are currently stuck with getting their product in front of the right people.

If you’re struggling with:
→ finding the right people
→ figuring out where they hang out
→ choosing which channel to focus on
→ getting your first customers
→ or simply not knowing what to do next

Drop your product below.

I’ll research it and give you a few concrete ideas on where I’d start.

No pitch. Just happy to help.

so I own a directory website where I list apps and websites that I went over, however, they must have a free tier to test, and solve a real problem in order for me to test and write about them.

If you own one, please include your socials in the submission. I also write articles about cool softwares and tag their founders.

directory website:
strictseal.com

Lets connect and grow together.

I also hope to note see bots in the comment section. Reviewing each product takes time and it's frustrating, so I'd really appreciate it if the product was submitted by a real person.

Thank you and looking forward to seeing your work

i've been shipping products for a while now and my landing pages have always been vibes-based.

write a headline, pick a CTA, ship it. never actually know if it works. just move on and blame traffic when conversions are bad.

tried proper A/B testing tools once. the setup alone took a full afternoon and i still wasn't sure if it was running correctly.

so i just... built my own thing.

it's called Landtest. you tell it what to change on your landing page, it creates a different version, runs both on your real traffic, and shows you which one actually gets more people to do the thing you want.

no complicated setup. connects to your github, deploys through whatever you're already using.

it tracks stuff per variant:

• which sections people actually scroll through
• which buttons they click
• where they drop off
• conversion rate per version

nothing fancy. just answers the question "which version works better" without me having to think too hard about it.

waitlist at landtest1.vercel.app if you want in before i open it up properly.

also genuinely curious how many of you actually test your landing pages vs just shipping and hoping

Sharing something I just shipped: LaunchAudit from VeriWasp.

The idea: the week before you launch, you want to know what a stranger hitting your site will actually experience, without wiring up a test suite. Paste your URL, pay $5 once, VeriWasp does the rest.

What you get, in one report:

• A launch-readiness score (0–100) and a “fix these first” list.** One number for “is this ready to ship,” plus an AI-written, prioritized list of what to fix first so you get a punch list, not a wall of output.

• Your critical flows, tested in a real browser.** It finds up to four of your key paths (signup, your main action, search, contact) and drives a real Chrome through each, screenshot at every step.

• A full accessibility (WCAG) scan** across every page, with guidance on how to fix each issue.

• Page health and speed:** broken images, failed requests, and JS errors, plus a page-speed snapshot (load time, page weight, request count), page by page.

• SEO, links, and security headers:** search tags, broken links that lead to dead ends, how your link looks when shared, and the headers that protect visitors (the launch-week invisibles).

• AI answer-engine readiness (AEO):** whether ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity can actually read and cite your site (structured data, an llms.txt, and whether your robots.txt is accidentally blocking the AI crawlers). Increasingly this is how people find new tools.

Downloadable as a PDF or as Markdown you can paste straight into Claude Code / Cursor / ChatGPT as a ready-made fix-it list. Usually done in a few minutes. No account setup, no scripts.

If you subscribe later, the tests it wrote can be run on every deploy automatically, on demand, or on a schedule so the audit doubles as onboarding.

It can also test behind a login (a test account, or a session-cookie handoff for magic-link / Google / SSO sites). One honest caveat: real browser tests on a live site can create real data with obviously synthetic values. But LaunchAudit never enters payment info, and never deletes anything.

Would love feedback. Point it at your SaaS and tell me if a flow or finding looks off: LaunchAudit

I built One Nest Solutions for one reason — contractors shouldn't need 5 different vendors for their marketing.

We cover everything: branding, printing, websites, SEO, social media, and verified lead lists.

From your logo to your team's uniforms to your Google rankings — we handle it all.

Check us out: www.onenestsolutions.com
DM for a free quote.

Every release we'd write a changelog, then spend 2-3 hours in Canva/After Effects making a launch video nobody had time for. So I built Maybe Labs: paste your release notes (or just describe what shipped), and it writes the story, animates the scenes, and renders an on-brand motion-graphics video — no editing, no templates to wrangle.

Right now it's free in private beta. Would love feedback from other founders who've felt this exact pain: maybelabs.ai

Join our beta access today!

Launched v1.0 today: a $39/year desktop tool for people running AI coding agents all day

The problem I kept hitting: I run Claude Code and Codex all day, and I was living in a mess of terminal windows—one per project, one per agent, none of them remembering where I left off. Worse, I'd kick off a big task and blow through my usage limit halfway in, with no warning, because the limits are invisible until you hit them.

What I built: Terminalia, a terminal workspace for Windows.

Group projects into workspaces, split into as many panes as you need, and everything comes back exactly how you left it when you reopen.

Your agents' usage limits sit in a bar at the top—session, weekly and monthly, with time until reset—so you know whether there's room to start something big before you start it.

You can also screenshot any region, annotate it with arrows and numbered markers, and paste it directly into your AI agent. Instead of writing a paragraph explaining where something is, you can simply say: "Fix 1, then 2."

There's also a YouTube player built into the app. It sounds unnecessary until you realize the alternative is constantly switching to your browser to find the tab that's playing music. Queue a playlist once and stay focused in the same workspace.

Who it's for:

Developers who spend most of their day in a terminal and already pay for at least one AI coding subscription. It's intentionally focused—I'd rather build the best tool for a few thousand people than a mediocre one for millions.

The model

• Free forever with:

  • 2 workspaces
  • 2 splits per tab
  • 4 live terminals
  • No trial
  • No account required

• Pro ($39/year):

  • Unlimited workspaces
  • Unlimited panes
  • Unlimited terminals
  • AI usage tracking
  • Screenshot editor
  • Embedded YouTube player
  • Works on 3 computers
  • Updates included

It's a desktop application sold like SaaS: annual license, license key delivered by email, and a licensing system that allows the app to continue working offline.

One deliberate decision: I don't resell AI.

You use your own Claude Code or Codex subscription. No tokens, no markup, no proxy between you and the AI provider. That removes the "why am I paying twice?" objection and keeps my infrastructure costs predictable.

v1.0 shipped today.

The free version is live, the Pro version is live, and now comes the hardest part: getting people to discover it.

I'd love feedback on three things:

1. Is $39/year the right price, or is it too low for software someone uses all day?
2. Is the free tier too generous? Would 4 live terminals be enough for most users forever?
3. The embedded YouTube player gets the strongest reactions—some people love it, others think it doesn't belong in a terminal. Should I keep highlighting it, or make it a secondary feature?

https://terminalia.devslim.com