How articles, reviews, and comparisons on this site are researched, sourced, written, dated, and corrected.
Plain-language summary: Reviews and recommendations on this site are based on public documentation, pricing pages, product pages, changelogs, and verified user reports. Where first-person testing occurred, it is called out explicitly in the article. Where it did not, the article is written as a research synthesis and labelled as such.
Prompts to Product is a research-based education hub for solo SaaS founders. The job of the site is to do synthesis work so a reader does not have to read every vendor pricing page, every changelog, and every founder thread to make a stack decision. Most articles are written from publicly available sources rather than from hands-on testing. This is stated openly so readers know what they are getting.
The sources below are the ones used most frequently across the site. Different articles draw on different combinations depending on the topic.
Official docs, getting-started guides, and reference material from the company that makes the product.
Vendor pricing pages on the date of last review. Pricing changes; we date every article and recheck periodically.
Marketing and product pages where they describe what a tool does and who it is for.
Public release notes and changelogs to track when features ship and when behaviour changes.
Public discussion threads on Indie Hackers, Hacker News, Reddit, X, and GitHub issues. Used as supporting signals for recurring strengths and pain points, not as the sole basis for any claim.
Independent published benchmarks from credible sources, cited where they exist for performance, bundle size, and similar measurable claims.
Used only where explicitly stated. Articles that include first-person testing identify what was built, what broke, and how long it took.
Original analysis from founders and operators (Andreessen on PMF, Dunford on positioning, Spolsky on rewrites, etc.). Cited where directly used.
Recommendation language on this site (“use X if Y,” “the better choice for Z”) reflects an editorial judgement based on the sources above. The criteria are:
Every article shows a “Last reviewed” date in the article meta block at the top. The date reflects the most recent time the article was checked against current sources. Pricing and feature claims drift quickly, especially in SaaS, so the date is meaningful.
If you spot an error or an outdated claim, the fastest way to flag it is via the contact page or by replying to a newsletter email. Material corrections are made promptly and the “Last reviewed” date is updated when the article is revised.
Where a topic touches a vendor with whom this site has a financial relationship (see affiliate disclosure), the affiliate relationship is disclosed inline next to any affiliate call-to-action and in the footer of every page. The financial relationship does not change the editorial position of the article.
This site is operated by an individual publisher, not a venture-backed media company. There are no investors with equity stakes in covered vendors.
If the editorial approach changes (for example, if the site begins doing systematic hands-on testing of new tools, or if the source mix expands materially), this page will be updated and the “Last updated” date at the top of the page will reflect the change.
If a specific article makes a claim you want to verify, the article should cite the source. If the source is unclear or the claim looks wrong, please reach out via the contact page. Reader feedback drives most corrections.