KILL

The AI that tries to kill your idea.

Every AI flatters your idea. This one signs kill conditions before seeing any evidence — then hunts for the data that proves you wrong.

Idea Autopsy · Intake Cold mode — no flattery

Enter to submit · Free · No email Two questions first — then your kill criteria

Intake interview — 2 questions

skip — assume for me

Sealed brief — your idea, as understood

edit anything above before confirming

Case file — pre-registered

PENDING EVIDENCE

What we had to assume — you didn't say

If any of these is wrong, rewrite your idea with it and run it again. The rest of the file depends on them.

Assumptions that must be true

Kill conditions

What the autopsy would investigate

Click any line to correct it — these are your criteria, not ours

The rules are now signed. Someone has to go find the evidence — the market's corpses, the voice of the pain, the case against. That's the autopsy.

Run the full autopsy — $29 beta

From the archive — Case 001 · realClosed 2026-08-12

KILLED

"An open-source alternative to PrintNode"

Kill conditions — signed before the evidence

If the incumbent is cheap enough to be painless, the idea dies.MET — $9/mo
If near-identical open-source projects already exist without traction, the idea dies.MET — 0★ and 1★
If manufacturers bundle the capability free with their hardware, the idea dies.MET — 2 major brands

VERDICT: KILL · ruled by pre-signed conditionsCost: $0 and 1 day. Not built: 3 months.

Skip the free step — run the full autopsy: $29 → How it killed its maker's ideas first ↓

4 ideas killed pre-launch 5 operator assumptions refuted 0 lines of code wasted Kill thresholds: public

The problem

Validation by chatbot is a mirror, not a microscope.

Exhibit AApril 2025 — documented

"This is absolutely brilliant… It's not just smart — it's genius."

— ChatGPT, to a Reddit user pitching a literal "shit on a stick" gag product. It suggested $30,000 could launch it. OpenAI rolled the model back days later for sycophancy.

Not a bug you can prompt away — studies show "be critical" doesn't protect you. Validation needs structure, not vibes.

The protocol

Four mechanisms a chatbot can't fake.

Sign the rules first.

Assumptions and kill conditions get locked before any evidence exists — nothing can bend the conclusion to please you.

Evidence, not opinions.

Market map (alive vs. dead, real prices) + voice of the pain (verbatim quotes with links) — every citation checked to exist.

The adversary.

A dedicated pass with one job: build the strongest possible case against your idea.

The verdict.

KILL / PROCEED WITH CONDITIONS / STRONG — ruled by your signed conditions, not the model's mood. Plus the full autopsy of what died and why.

Prior casework

It killed its maker's ideas first.

Five of its creator's ideas went in. Four came out dead — each with cited evidence.

Case 001 — open-source printing tool

KILLED

"Open-source PrintNode alternative"

Cause of deathIncumbent costs $9/month, and two identical OSS projects sit at 0-1 stars. Nobody came.

Case 002 — developer sandbox

KILLED

"LocalStack for the WhatsApp API"

Cause of deathTesting turned out to be the least-voiced pain of the entire lifecycle. A vacuum, not a market.

Case 003 — integration agent

KILLED

"An agent that installs the integration in your repo"

Cause of deathFree wrappers already solved the coding pain; the real blocker is paperwork no code removes.

Case 004 — marketing research product

KILLED

"Validated ad strategy for marketers"

Cause of death~32 searches, zero first-person quotes of the buyer. Only vendors voice this pain.

Case 005 — this product

PROCEED

Idea Autopsy itself

VerdictThe one survivor — built on the loudest documented pain of everything measured: AI sycophancy in business decisions. This page is its pre-registered smoke test. Not enough buyers → it dies too, autopsy published.

The deliverable

What you get.

The verdict — KILL / PROCEED / STRONG, ruled by your signed criteria.
The evidence dossier — market map + voice bank, verbatim quotes with links.
The adversarial case — the strongest argument against you, written down.
The autopsy — or the green light — which assumptions died, and what to do next.
Clickable sources — every claim links to something you can check.

Questions

The four you're already asking.

Why can't I just ask ChatGPT?

You can — and it will probably encourage you. Sycophancy is structural (models are trained on human approval), and research shows "be critical" prompts don't fix it. What works is process: criteria committed before evidence, deliberate search for disconfirming data, verified citations, and a separate adversary. That's not a prompt. That's Idea Autopsy.

How is this different from an AI research report?

Evidence reports already exist — good ones even link their sources. The difference is sequence and teeth: Idea Autopsy commits to kill conditions before any evidence is gathered, runs a dedicated adversarial pass against your idea, and rules KILL or PROCEED by those pre-signed rules — not by whatever tone the model woke up with. A report informs you. An autopsy decides.

What if my idea is actually good?

Then it survives the autopsy and you get something more valuable than encouragement: the documented reasons it holds up, the conditions it depends on, and the evidence to move fast with confidence.

How long does it take?

24 hours. During beta we onboard manually — a human operates the system on your idea, end to end.

The AI that tries to kill your idea.

"An open-source alternative to PrintNode"

Validation by chatbot is a mirror, not a microscope.

Four mechanisms a chatbot can't fake.

Sign the rules first.

Evidence, not opinions.

The adversary.

The verdict.

It killed its maker's ideas first.

"Open-source PrintNode alternative"

"LocalStack for the WhatsApp API"

"An agent that installs the integration in your repo"

"Validated ad strategy for marketers"

Idea Autopsy itself

What you get.

The four you're already asking.

Bring the idea you're most in love with.