ACME.BOT

The interview-first step is the interesting bit — most SEO tools skip straight to generating commodity content. Once I answer the questions for a topic, does it persist that expertise as reusable context for future posts, or is each article a fresh interview? And for the publishing cadence, which CMSs can it actually push to versus just draft?

One thing I'm curious about is how you stop the content from sounding repetitive after a few months. Does the knowledge base help with that?

the feature list has a "Humanizer - reduces the chance of being flagged as AI writing" line right next to the EEAT/no-slop pitch, and those two things sit a bit awkwardly together. if the content is genuinely built from a real interview with someone's first-hand expertise, why does the output still need to be disguised from AI detectors? that reads like the underlying draft is more AI-generated-then-dressed-up than the interview-first framing suggests. is the humanizer mostly smoothing awkward phrasing, or actually working to defeat detection tools specifically?

Is it like SEObot?

finaly we can ship blogs with our opinions!!

Love the angle on using real expertise over generic AI slop, that's genuinely refreshing. One thing that would seal it for me though, can you add a way to pull in my own raw voice notes or transcripts and have the bot match my writing style? Right now I'm worried the output might still sound like AI even with my answers.

Honestly the questionnaire flow is way faster than I expected, answered like 6 prompts on my phone during a coffee break and it spit out a solid first draft. The internal linking is the part that surprised me, it actually found relevant stuff on my old posts.

The interview-first approach is actually clever. Most SEO tools just take a brief and run with it, ends up generic. Does the interview data get reused for future content or each piece starts fresh?

ACME.BOTThe “interviews you first” approach is interesting. SEO agents often jump straight into execution, but the quality of the initial diagnosis probably determines whether the recommendations are actually useful. Curious to see how you handle cases where the founder’s stated SEO problem isn’t the real bottleneck.

the interview-first angle makes sense as a way to avoid the generic AI-blog-post feel. how long is a typical interview session though - is this a quick 5 question voice thing on your phone, or does getting genuinely useful first-hand detail out of someone take more like a 20 minute back and forth?

Love that the questions come to your phone instead of forcing you into a desktop session, that small choice removes the friction of actually sitting down to write.

what if I don't have a strong opinion yet on the topic, does it help me form one.

Dyuti, you asked why people quietly stop publishing AI drafts, so here is mine: every draft read as competent and generic at once. No number I had earned, no opinion I would defend in a room, so putting my name on it felt like a small lie, and fixing that by hand cost more than writing from scratch.The interview flow is the right fix, because the missing input was never the words, it was the first-hand material only I had.One question, from running SEO in a narrow B2B healthcare niche: the posts that convert for me have almost no search volume and rank on depth, not keywords. Does the research chase volume, or can it work the low and zero-volume long-tail questions real buyers actually type?

The interview-first approach is the real unlock here. Most AI SEO tools start from keywords and end up sounding like the same recycled SERP summary. Pulling in the founder’s actual opinions, examples, and counterintuitive takes before drafting feels much closer to how useful blog posts get made.The GitHub/Markdown connector is also interesting for custom blogs. Curious how much control users get over the final publishing flow: can teams keep approval gates and edits inside their existing repo workflow before anything goes live?

Other co-founder here 👋@abhishek_iyer covered what it does, so I'll just say why I wanted it to exist.What worked for my previous product was blog posts targeting the specific things people search right before they buy. It worked better than ads and outbound for us.We tried to scale that with writers, then with AI. Failed both times. Took me ages to see why. The posts that worked had things nobody else could write. Numbers from our own work, opinions from years of doing it. That never made it into a brief. So every draft needed hours of editing before I'd put my name on it, and that time never existed. I generated a lot. I published almost none. The interview flow is our answer to that. It does the research, reads your docs, then asks you the few things it couldn't know and your answers anchor the piece. Basically the tool I wanted when I was doing this by hand. The feedback I most want: if you've tried AI writing tools and quietly stopped publishing the drafts, tell me why. That's the failure mode we are builting against.