爱窝啦 AI 商机

Direct Conclusions

• Bottom line: Both candidates today are GitHub projects — one is a multi-tool system prompt collection, the other is a codebase-to-diagram tool. The real question worth validating: are there people in specific roles who’d actually pay for “already-sorted, ready-to-read comparison results”?
• Build or not: Prioritize Candidate 1 (the system-prompts comparison pack) — the evidence is more direct and the delivery scope is cleaner. Candidate 2 is a side experiment.
• Validate first: Build one concrete sample for a specific scenario, then put it in front of 3–5 target users and watch whether they ask about pricing or signal intent.
• When to quit: If none of the 5 target users ask about price after seeing the sample — or if the licensing check fails — stop immediately.

Today’s Main Bet

Validating whether any small team would buy a “Multi-Tool System Prompt Side-by-Side Comparison Pack”

This repo pulls the system prompts and underlying models of 26 AI coding tools into one place, saving people who’d otherwise have to stumble through each one separately the time of searching and comparing. The opportunity isn’t in the repo itself — it’s whether small teams doing evaluations or tool selection would pay for “already read it for you, organized the differences, here’s exactly what’s different” comparison results. 🎯

• Evidence & confidence: Medium. system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools official repo — confirms the project contains system prompts and model info for 26+ tools . Gap: the candidate input this time didn’t include the license type or a clear statement on whether commercial redistribution is allowed — that needs to be checked first.
• The pond & the grunt work: Unvalidated assumption: small-team tech leads doing tool selection, indie devs, or AI tool consultants may currently be opening each tool’s website and docs one by one, manually comparing behavior boundaries and model differences — a repetitive process that can’t be reused.
• Minimum deliverable: “AI Coding Tool System Prompt Side-by-Side Comparison Pack v1” — covers 3–5 mainstream tools (e.g., Claude Code, Cursor, Windsurf, Kiro, Devin) with a core prompt-diff comparison table + known limitations summary per tool + 1 quick-reference tool-selection card. Buyer’s check: within 10 minutes of opening the deliverable, they can understand the behavioral boundary differences between two tools without digging through the repo themselves. Not included: accounts, subscriptions, or any real-time update commitments.
• 48-hour validation: Pick 3 tools from the repo, spend 2 hours putting together 1 screenshot-able comparison table (diff dimensions, limitations, models) as a sample. Send that sample to 3–5 developers or tech consultants who are currently using or evaluating AI coding tools, and ask directly: “Is this useful to you? Would you be interested in asking about pricing for the full 5–8 tool comparison pack?” Watch for: anyone who proactively asks for a price or says “I actually need this right now.”
• First sale & repeat purchases: Test pitch: “Save yourself the pain of individually stumbling through 5 AI coding tools — all 26 are already collected, I’ve organized the most-compared 5, and I’ll tell you straight up what’s different.” First sale is fixed scope: comparison pack for 5 specified tools, delivered as PDF or Notion page, no real-time updates, no tool installation service. Repeat purchase potential: Tool system prompts change with version updates — if any user confirms they’d subscribe to a “monthly updated edition,” this could mature into a lightweight data product; otherwise it’s more of a one-time purchase, and you should be upfront about that.
• Risks & stop conditions: Post-sale compliance risk is medium — the repo’s license type wasn’t included in the candidate input this time, commercial redistribution boundaries need to be verified; system prompts themselves may involve each tool’s copyright or terms of use, so you can’t directly resell large chunks of original text — deliverable should be “organized comparative analysis,” not raw copy-paste. Stop conditions: license prohibits commercial use; 5 target users see the sample and nobody asks about pricing; organizing costs clearly exceed what buyers are willing to pay.

This Week’s Side Experiment

Validating which type of developer would pay for “auto-converting a codebase into an interactive architecture diagram”

• Evidence source: archify official repo — confirms the project code and feature description for converting codebases into interactive diagrams exists
• Target pond: Unvalidated assumption: developers or small teams who need to explain existing codebase structure to non-technical members or new hires may currently be drawing diagrams by hand or using screenshots to explain architecture.
• Minimum deliverable: Run archify on 1 real small project first, generate a screenshot-able interactive architecture diagram as a sample. Buyer’s check: open the diagram and identify the main modules and call relationships without reading any code.
• 48-hour validation: Run through 1 complete flow and record actual time spent, then send the generated diagram sample to 3–5 developers currently maintaining legacy projects or writing technical docs. Watch whether anyone asks “can you run this on my project?”
• Why it’s just a side experiment: Composite score is lower than the main bet (47/100), and the developer-tool-setup delivery family has shown up multiple times in a row this week — need to validate first whether this specific scenario is different enough from recent deliverables. Whether the tool supports Chinese-language projects and what the actual time and cost is for large repos weren’t included in the candidate input this time — needs hands-on testing to confirm.
• Stop conditions: Local run fails or time exceeds what buyers would reasonably expect; 5 target users see the sample with no interest; licensing boundaries don’t allow commercial delivery.

Don’t Touch Today

Both social media directions (Xiaohongshu new version and immersive translation glossary) only have Telegram channel screenshot reposts — no official release or original project source that can be verified . Feature status, launch timing, and actual deliverable scope are all unconfirmable. Jumping in now is basically betting on a product that isn’t even on the shelf yet — almost certainly a waste of time. 🚫

Today’s Three Steps

• Confirm today: Open the system-prompts-and-models-of-ai-tools repo, find the LICENSE file, and verify whether organized comparative analysis can be used for commercial delivery.
• Build today: Pick Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf from the repo, and put together 1 difference comparison table (behavior boundaries, underlying models, known limitations) in a screenshot-able format.
• Test pricing today: Send that comparison table to 3–5 developers who are currently using or evaluating AI coding tools, and ask them directly whether — after looking at it — they’d be willing to express interest in the “full 5-tool version” or give feedback on a trial price.