--- title: Atisbo — one list of what to do next description: Atisbo turns what a company says — support tickets, sales calls, meetings and its own strategy — into one ordered list of what to do next: evidence is grouped when it describes the same problem, ranked by how much of it there is and how urgent it sounds, and stays attached to the work. The team and its coding agents work from the same list. canonical: https://www.atisbo.dev/ last-updated: 2026-08-23 --- # Atisbo — one list of what to do next > Atisbo turns what a company says — support tickets, sales calls, meetings and its own strategy — into one ordered list of what to do next: evidence is grouped when it describes the same problem, ranked by how much of it there is and how urgent it sounds, and stays attached to the work. The team and its coding agents work from the same list. ## The problem Product teams are hired to decide what to build, and spend much of the week collecting, organising and reconnecting scattered feedback instead. Third-party research on where that week goes: 12h a week lost to coordination (Quire), 11.3h a week in meetings (Noota), 12–15h a week analysing feedback, per team (BuildBetter). ## What it does 1. Connects read-only to the tools a team already uses — around a thousand apps through Composio, plus email forwarding, webhooks and file upload. Atisbo never writes into those tools. 2. Groups incoming feedback describing the same underlying problem into a single item. Nothing merges until a language model confirms two pieces of evidence are the same root problem. 3. Ranks problems by evidence volume, recency, urgency, and strategic fit. A product manager's explicit order always wins over the computed one. 4. Keeps the evidence and reasoning attached to each decision, so the team and their coding agents read the same record through MCP. ## Who it is for Product teams that already get real work out of Claude Code, Codex or Cursor, that are measured on whether what they shipped changed anything, and that treat the quality of a decision as the work. A poor fit for teams measured on shipping volume, where nobody owns product decisions, or that do not work with agents at all. ## Pricing - Free: public feedback about your product, turned into a backlog. No card, no sources to connect first. - Team: $300 a month for one product workspace, or $1,800 a year ($150 a month, a 50% beta price locked for the first year). Covers 5 editors; each additional editor is $60 a month on the monthly plan, up to 19. Readers and agents are never charged a seat. - Enterprise: required from 20 editors, priced by contact. ## Questions people ask ### What can it actually connect to? Around a thousand apps. You connect them by asking your agent — it searches the catalogue, handles the authorisation, and picks up either the events an app pushes or a read-only action Atisbo runs on a schedule. So Jira, Linear, Zendesk, Intercom, HubSpot and most of what you already run are a request away, not a roadmap item. Forwarding an email or dropping in a CSV needs no setup at all. All of it read-only, enforced in code: Atisbo can never write into your tools. ### Does my team have to move into a new tool? No, and it would defeat the point if they did. Design, engineering and stakeholders open a problem, its evidence and the decision through a secure read-only link or their own agent — neither needs an account, so neither consumes a paid editor seat. The platform is for the people who correct, prioritise and approve. ### Do I need Claude Code, Codex or another agent? Yes — to get the value out of it, you do. The platform is where you read, review and approve, and it is deliberately good at that. But the work happens in your agent: through MCP it pulls a decision and its constraints into your session, then writes the design, the pull request and the risks back to the same item. Without that you have a very good place to read a backlog — and a backlog you only read is what every other tool sells. ### Why not just build this myself with an agent? You could — the same way you could build your own CRM. Most people who try find it takes months to wire up properly, keeps needing maintenance after that, and often still falls short of something purpose-built. Atisbo is fully built, keeps improving on its own, and works from day one. The whole point of a product decision backlog is that your time is worth more than building one. ### How is this different from Productboard or Dovetail? Those are feature suites, and not being one is a decision, not a stage we have not reached yet. A thousand features is noise: some nobody has time to use, others are structures from before agents could do the work — sprints, estimates, story points, sub-tasks, standups, workload views, boards to keep tidy. Each is another thing you maintain, and maintaining tools is not your job. So Atisbo holds only what lets you decide well: what is actually happening with your product, whether it fits the strategy you already set, how urgent it is from evidence rather than opinion, and what changed once it shipped. That is not how far we got — it is where we decided to stop. Built by a product builder for product builders: nothing to read up on, nothing trying to look clever. ### Is my data used to train models? No. We don’t sell, rent or trade your data, we don’t use it to train or improve any model of our own, and the AI services that process it are contractually barred from training on it. If you need that in your own paperwork — a named region, your own model key, specific terms — we configure it and put what we commit to in writing. Every provider we use, what it receives and the terms it operates under is listed in Annex III of our DPA, sent on request. Separately and regardless of provider: each workspace is isolated at the database level, not just in the interface. ### Does it replace Jira or Linear? Not on day one — keep them, and let Atisbo feed them. Your agent holds Atisbo and your tracker at the same time, so "open the Linear issue for this decision" is one instruction; we never write into your tools ourselves, and we do not need to. The difference worth understanding is the unit: they manage tasks, fragments a person split up and then has to keep coordinating. Here the unit is a whole problem, carrying the evidence that produced it and the decision behind it, which your engineers and their agents pull in through MCP — the context arrives with the work instead of being reconstructed in a kickoff. No sprints, estimates or sub-tasks, on purpose. And the further a team moves toward complete problems instead of fragments, the more this becomes where the work itself lives, and the whole cycle stops leaving one system. ### Why not hire someone to do this instead? If you can get the headcount, hire them — this is not an argument against people. But be clear about which half of that role you are buying. Most of it is collecting: reading what came in, grouping it, chasing what moved, re-explaining a decision to whoever needs it next. That half happens every week whether or not anyone has time for it, and it is the half Atisbo does. The other half — judgement, arguing a call with a stakeholder, knowing which customer to phone — is the half Atisbo never touches, deliberately, and no amount of software will. What a hire does not solve is the record itself: a person does not give you one shared account of what was decided and why, they become it, which is why it walks out with them. ### Is this sensible if I am the only product builder? Often, honestly, no. Team is $300 a month for one product — $150 a month billed annually — and that covers 5 editors, with $60 a month for each one after that. Readers and agents are free, but a plan sized for five people is still a team plan. Team supports up to 19 paid editor seats; 20 or more uses Enterprise. It can pay off solo when coordination is already what eats your week — but start with the free version, which runs on public feedback and needs no card, and if it turns out you only wanted somewhere to file feedback, we would rather you knew before paying. ### How do I know if this is for my team? It is, if you recognise these: priorities change and it turns into friction instead of a decision; alignment is where most of your effort goes and it still slips; someone on the team is running on empty, or already burned out; you care whether what you shipped actually changed anything; strategy is a filter you apply, not a slide from last quarter; and your team already gets real work out of Claude Code, Cursor or Codex. It is not, if shipping more is the goal and impact gets measured later or never; if nobody really owns product decisions and they happen in passing; if strategy is a slide from last quarter nobody reopens; or if nobody works with an agent and you would rather keep it that way. Size matters far less than whether you recognise yourself in the first list. ## Links - [About](https://www.atisbo.dev/about) - [Contact](https://www.atisbo.dev/contact) - [Full context for language models](https://app.atisbo.dev/llms-full.txt) — the same material at length, on the product origin - [Documentation](https://app.atisbo.dev/docs) - [Trust and security](https://app.atisbo.dev/security) - MCP endpoint: `https://app.atisbo.dev/api/mcp` — JSON-RPC, requires an API key from a workspace Note for crawlers: everything under `app.atisbo.dev/dashboard/` requires an account and will not render for you.