Better Feedback.

Ship the feature. Get the verdict.

Send one link to the users of what you just shipped. BetterFeedback runs short AI chat interviews and returns a verdict — KEEP, FIX, or KILL — with receipts.

below — one example run, start to finish

CSV export merges.

CI is green. The e2e suite passed. Your agent wrote half the diff and the changelog line wrote itself — a green check before your coffee cools.

Then the other loop opens: did anyone want this? That one still runs on recruiting emails, calendar tetris, and the no-show at 2pm. So you run two interviews a quarter, or none, and ship the rest on gut.

csv-export for dashboard reports

example run · #482 · merged tuesday 4:12 pm

  • unit — 214 passed
  • e2e — 31 passed
  • typecheck — clean

does it work — answered in 4 minutes

did anyone want it — open

You've automated the loop for “does it work.” For “did anyone want it,” you've got a voicemail.

No calendar. No call to book. Just a link.

A user clicks the link.

No booking link. No “got 30 minutes this week?” The chat says it's AI up front and asks consent before a word is kept. Two questions in, the user types the sentence no dashboard would ever surface — and the next question chases it.

AI interview · consent asked first · skip anytime

You used the new CSV export this week. How did it go?
Looked fine — until I exported about twelve thousand rows. The file stopped at ten thousand and never warned me.
That missing warning — when did you catch it? Before or after the file went to someone else?

the follow-up came from the answer, not a script

Example run: seven sessions in. Two don't count.

In this example run, quotes stack up — and two sessions end before they count. One ends after “qwe rty zxc.” One after “hi.” The quality gate throws both out: out of the denominator, off your bill. Five quality-completed interviews remain, and one of them liked the export fine. That stays in the file too — a verdict you can't argue with is a verdict you can't trust.

  • session_01

    “The file stopped at ten thousand rows and never warned me.”

    hit the wall
  • session_02

    “I re-ran the export three times before I realized rows were missing.”

    hit the wall
  • session_03

    qwe rty zxc

    abandoned · excluded · never billed
  • session_04

    “Exported about four thousand rows. Worked great.”

    counterevidence · stays in
  • session_05

    “I stopped trusting the numbers and rebuilt the report by hand.”

    hit the wall
  • session_06

    “hi”

    abandoned · excluded · never billed
  • session_07

    “Never exported anything that big. No complaints.”

    counterevidence · stays in

claim · under review

Exports silently truncate at 10,000 rows.

  • denominator

    3 of 5 quality-completed sessions

  • confidence

    early signal — small n, same wall

  • counterevidence

    2 of 5 attached. Shown, not deleted.

  • source

    every claim pinned to a transcript span

verified — claims without receipts don't ship

Think CI for conclusions: the AI proposes, a deterministic verifier checks the math, and anything without evidence is blocked. Have a follow-up? Ask the evidence — answers come back with citations to real transcripts.

The verdict comes back.

example run · csv export · friday 4:58 pm

CSV Export

Verdict: FIX

3 of 5 quality-completed interviews hit the same wall

wall #1 silent truncation at 10,000 rows

attached counterevidence · every quote linked to its transcript

Stamped in red, because red means decide. Not a sentiment score. Not a word cloud. A ruling with the math to defend it. Your users said it — BetterFeedback shows the receipts.

The next roadmap fight ends with a verdict.

Free to start. One active run and ten chat interviews a month. No card.

your feature name here