What’s good (keep this): - You’re targeting a real pain (fast ≠ stable). - It’s relevant to an AI vibe-coding founder. - You’re not pitching features, you're pitching outcomes. - The Loom offer is smart. Where it’s hurting your replies: 1. It’s too “polite LinkedIn-smart”This reads like something they’ve seen 20 times this week.Nothing is wrong — but nothing grabs. Founders won’t reply unless they feel: “This person understands a problem I’m actively dealing with right now.” 2. You talk about “users” and “apps” too abstractlyYou’re describing a category problem, not their problem. 3. The partner angle isn’t sharp enoughRight now it sounds like: “We help after things break.” What they need to feel is: “This helps us ship faster without breaking later.” How I’d tighten it (example rewrite) Subject (optional but strong): Fast builds ≠ stable products (seen this a lot lately) Email body: Hi {{Name}}, I’ve been watching how teams are using {{platform}} to ship insanely fast, it’s impressive. What we’re seeing on our side is a pattern you might already be running into: AI builds get teams to “wow” fast… but things start wobbling once real users, payments, and edge cases show up. That’s where we typically partner in. At n0c0de, we take AI-built products that work and make them production-ready, stable data, clean handoffs, fewer rebuilds once usage scales. For platforms like yours, this usually means: - fewer abandoned builds after launch - less churn from “it worked… until it didn’t” - a clear path: AI for speed then humans for scale I recorded a 2-minute Loom showing how this transition looks in real products. Worth a quick look? One more important note (this matters) If this is cold outreach, don’t send the Loom first. Tease it. Earn the “yes.” Cold rule of thumb: - Curiosity > credibility - Specific > impressive - Shorter > smarter Final verdict You’re 80% there. Right now: - Good logic - Safe tone - Low emotional pull