Draft library
Posts and comments before review
Each draft keeps its intent, disclosure note, link policy, risk flags, edit suggestions, and readiness status in one place.
How I scope AI-generated code changes so the diff stays reviewable
I have been testing a rule for AI coding workflows: the output is not done until a human can review the diff in one sitting. The practical version is small surface area, explicit success checks, and no speculative refactors. For people using AI coding tools, what makes a generated change easiest for you to trust?
Rule status
Ready for human review
0 checks need attention
Edit suggestions
- Keep product name out of the first post.
- Ask for workflow examples, not signups.
What makes a landing page critique actually useful?
I keep seeing first landing pages fail for the same reason: the copy describes the product instead of the buyer's moment of need. When you ask for critique, what feedback format helps most: headline first, offer clarity, proof, pricing, or something else?
Rule status
Needs rewrite before queue
2 checks need attention
Edit suggestions
- Avoid saying the tool solves the problem.
- Ask community members to share examples.
Do you track leads in a spreadsheet, notes app, CRM, or something else?
For small service businesses, the messy middle between memory and a full CRM seems under-discussed. If you run a local business, what do you use to remember follow-ups, quotes, and customers who said to check back later?
Rule status
Ready for human review
0 checks need attention
Edit suggestions
- Keep language non-technical.
- Do not frame the problem as a software pitch.