
Flock has arrived!
I don't know when all of these were set up, but it seems like in the last couple of weeks. Just insane.

I don't know when all of these were set up, but it seems like in the last couple of weeks. Just insane.
AI can make prospect research much faster, but speed is not the most important change. The better opportunity is to ask a more precise question than a static database filter can express—and still receive an answer another person can inspect.
This guide shows how to structure that request across companies, people, existing CRM accounts, markets, and public projects, then verify the result before it influences a record or next action.
AI prospect research is not limited to finding net-new leads. It can build a list, enrich existing CRM accounts, profile a public company, compare projects or markets, or investigate another structured public-web question. Define the task, subject, criteria, output fields, and evidence you expect back, then verify every result against its source before using it.
The prompts in this guide are illustrative, not an exhaustive menu of supported searches. Try the free AI Lead Finder with a request such as:
>Find AI infrastructure companies hiring founding designers. Include the company, what it builds, the relevant job opening, and a source for the hiring signal.
AI prospect research is the use of search and language models to find, enrich, profile, or compare companies, people, markets, and projects, then organize the public evidence behind each result.
It is different from asking a contact database for every software company in a given employee range. A research request can combine criteria that live in different places:
Modern prospecting platforms increasingly emphasize funding, hiring, leadership, and technology changes as useful timing signals. For example, Signalbase describes funding and hiring activity as searchable company signals, while Origami focuses on combining signals such as recent funding with hiring in a specific department.
The important distinction is that a signal is evidence to investigate—not proof that a company will buy.
Structured databases are excellent when the question maps cleanly to their columns:
>Show software companies in the United States with 50–200 employees.
They become less effective when the real request is closer to this:
>Find Series A AI companies whose product needs enterprise positioning and that have recently hired, or are hiring, a senior marketing leader.
That request requires interpretation and current public evidence. “AI company” may be described on the company site, the funding stage may appear in an announcement, and the leadership signal may be found on a team or careers page.
AI research can connect those pieces, but only if the output preserves where each claim came from.
Use this structure:
| Part | Question | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Task | What should the research do? | Build, enrich, profile, compare, investigate |
| Subject | What should each row or report cover? | Company, person, project, or existing account |
| Stable criteria | What must be consistently true? | AI infrastructure; Series A; United States |
| Current signal | What recent evidence matters? | Hiring a founding designer |
| Required fields | What should the result contain? | Name, role/category, URL, signal |
| Verification | What evidence must accompany the result? | Public source, date, and concise fit note |
A reusable prompt template is:
>[Task] [subject or existing records] using [stable criteria] and [current signal]. For each result, include [required fields] and link to [evidence requirement]. Mark unknowns and exclude claims that cannot be verified.
>Find CMOs at Series A AI startups in the United States. Include the person, company, public role source, funding-stage source, and a short note explaining the match.
This is stronger than “find AI CMOs” because it defines both the person and company conditions and asks for proof of each.
Open this people-and-stage example in the Lead Finder →
>Find AI infrastructure companies hiring founding designers. Include company name, product category, careers or job URL, date or recency signal, and a concise fit note.
The job opening is the time-sensitive part. It should be checked again immediately before using the result because openings close and role descriptions change.
Open this hiring-signal example in the Lead Finder →
>Compare eight durable open-source AI infrastructure projects for building LLM applications. For each, include project name, primary category, GitHub URL, latest release or activity signal, and a concise fit note.
This is not a conventional sales-lead request, but it uses the same research discipline. “Durable” needs an observable definition such as recent releases, continuing commits, responsive maintainers, multiple contributors, or an active issue queue. Research on open-source maintenance likewise treats repository activity as a useful—but imperfect—indicator of project health (Coelho et al.).
Open this project-research example in the Lead Finder →
>Enrich these 25 CRM accounts with website, headquarters, employee count, latest funding or company status, and a concise account-specific buying trigger. For each value, include the most current public evidence available, record the source date, and mark unknowns rather than guessing.
This begins with records the team already has. It is an enrichment and prioritization task, not net-new list building. Employee counts can be estimates, company status can change, and a buying trigger is an evidence-backed hypothesis—not proof of purchase intent.
>Profile [company] using its official website, public web-traffic evidence, and recent company news. Include the source, date, observed trend or event, and a concise note explaining why it may matter.
A company profile can be a single-company report rather than a list. Web-traffic figures should name the measurement source and whether the number is an estimate; “latest news” should include an event date, not only a publication date.
The same structure can support many other questions, including people with a specific career-history pattern, companies in a precise category and funding stage, account research before a meeting, technology adoption evidence, or a comparison of public projects. The limiting factor is whether the question can be answered responsibly from available public evidence—not whether it matches one of the examples above.
Coherence Lead Finder
Turn a precise brief into research you can inspect
Ask for companies, people, accounts, markets, or projects with the fields and public evidence your decision actually requires.
AI can accelerate discovery, but verification remains a human responsibility.
For worked examples, continue with:
Confirm that the source actually supports the claim. A search-result snippet is not enough when the underlying page says something different.
Funding stages, leadership roles, hiring pages, and repository activity all change. Record when you checked the source and prefer first-party evidence where practical.
“The company is hiring a founding designer” may be directly supported by a job page. “The company urgently needs design help” is an inference. Keep those statements separate.
Use corroboration when the cost of being wrong is high. A company announcement plus a reputable funding report is stronger than an isolated directory entry.
Do not keep a row just to reach an arbitrary list size. A shortlist of eight well-supported matches is more useful than 25 names padded with adjacent companies.
“Find promising AI startups” leaves “promising,” “AI,” and “startup” undefined. Replace subjective words with observable criteria.
Public research does not guarantee a verified email address, direct phone number, or private identity data. Ask for public profiles and official sources, then use an appropriate permission-based process for contact data.
A funding round creates capacity. A hiring post shows an active role. Neither proves purchasing intent. Signals help prioritize research; they do not replace qualification.
A polished answer without evidence is hard to trust and impossible to refresh. Require a source per row.
Do not turn a research result directly into autonomous outreach. Verify the company or person, decide whether the fit is real, and choose the next step deliberately.
The Coherence AI Lead Finder accepts a natural-language request and researches current public sources. It can build lists, enrich existing CRM accounts, profile companies, compare markets or projects, and answer other structured research questions. Its useful difference is not that it returns the largest possible list. It is that the request can contain multiple specific conditions and the results carry evidence that can be inspected.
Eligible structured results can then be carried into the same workspace where the team manages accounts, leads, projects, notes, tasks, and custom records. Existing accounts can also be enriched with researched fields when the workflow supplies the records and desired output. If the standard CRM shape does not fit the research, the custom CRM guide explains how to model additional entities and relationships. Coherence does not promise that every public fact is complete or current, and it does not guarantee private contact information. The source is there so you can make that judgment yourself.
Not exactly. Lead generation is the broader process of creating potential sales opportunities. Prospect research is the evidence-gathering step used to identify and qualify possible companies or people.
Yes, when a public careers page, job post, or other reliable source exposes the role. Because openings change quickly, verify the job immediately before acting on it.
It can connect public role evidence with public company-funding evidence. Both parts should be sourced; a job title alone does not prove the company stage.
Yes. Supply the account list and the fields you want researched, such as website, headquarters, employee count, latest funding or status, and a possible buying trigger. Require a source and date for each value, and allow unknowns because public evidence is often incomplete.
Usually not. Databases are efficient for broad, standardized filters. AI research is useful for narrow combinations, current signals, and questions that require interpreting public evidence. Many teams will use both.
Exclude it or mark it for additional research. Uncertainty should remain visible rather than being converted into a confident-looking score.
Ready to test a precise research question? Run it in the free AI Lead Finder. No signup is required to see the initial results.
Originally posted at: https://getcoherence.io/blog/ai-prospect-research-guide
I do not know who the speaker is, if you do let me know.
Hi all, I am a solo founder of a SaaS platform. Been building the idea for years. Went full time a little over a year ago after leaving my corporate job in software consulting. No revenue at the moment. I am technical and thrive in building the product, not so good at finding customers, so I'm looking to bring on someone with more of a sales background to help with growth and finding PMF by talking to potential customers.
Our initial conversations have been productive, but I'm torn on some of the "not-legal advice" I've gotten from my AI companions. I've also talked to a couple of lawyers, but wanted to see what the consensus was here.
Initially I was thinking of bringing them on using a 90-120 day trial, like an advisor relationship, with somewhere in the sub 1% equity, then 8% if they go full time after the trial as a true cofounder with tranches/milestones based on metrics like first $1k in MRR to $1M in ARR towards the end to earn up to 40%. All of this would have the standard one-year cliff with 4-year vesting. There's been push back from the potential founder on this structure, which I understand, and I'm struggling to figure out what's best to protect the company from bringing on someone who is not the right long-term fit.
I'm now leaning towards the more typical, "just give them the full amount of equity after the trial" with a 65/35 or 60/40 split and rely on the 1-year/4-year and hope they are the right fit.
Any advice on what to do or look out for?
Notion Mail is shutting down on September 22, 2026. If you fell for its saved Views, smart labels, and keyboard-fast inbox, you don't have to give those up. Coherence Mail brings the same speed and structure—then goes further: your mail is encrypted at rest, your smart categories are sorted without an AI reading your messages, you keep your existing Gmail or Outlook address, and your inbox finally sits next to your contacts, deals, and automations instead of in yet another standalone app. Here's how to make the switch a step up instead of a step sideways.
In early 2025, Notion Mail did something most email clients hadn't in a decade: it made the inbox feel designed. Then, roughly eighteen months later, Notion announced it's sunsetting the product. On September 22, 2026, Notion Mail stops.
That leaves a real question for the people who actually changed their habits around it: where do you go that doesn't feel like a downgrade back to a stock inbox?
We've been building Coherence Mail for exactly this kind of user—someone who wants email to be fast, structured, and connected to the rest of their work. So this isn't a neutral roundup. But we'll be fair about what Notion Mail got right, honest about what it never did, and specific about where Coherence is genuinely better.
Give credit where it's due. The reason Notion Mail earned loyalty in a crowded category:
None of that was revolutionary on its own. Together, it made the inbox feel like a tool you chose rather than one you tolerated. Any replacement worth switching to has to clear that bar—not just match a feature checklist.
If you're picking a new home for your email, weigh it on more than "does it have folders":
Hold Coherence up against each of those.
Coherence Mail has saved Views: create "Unread from clients," "Newsletters," or "This week's invoices" once, pin it to the sidebar, and jump straight in. It has smart categories—Travel, Purchases, Finance, Newsletters—rendered as color chips right on each row, so your inbox self-sorts the way Notion Mail's labels did. And a global command palette (⌘K) gets you to any inbox, view, or action in a couple of keystrokes.
The muscle memory you built in Notion Mail mostly transfers. That's the point—switching should feel like an upgrade, not re-learning email.
Here's the part most inbox apps quietly skip. In Coherence, your mail is encrypted at rest—the contents of your messages are stored as encrypted capsules, not sitting in a database we can casually read.
And our smart categorization is deterministic, not AI-snooping. Sorting a receipt into Purchases or a flight confirmation into Travel happens by reading structured signals (sender patterns, schema.org markup that airlines and stores already embed, unsubscribe headers)—not by feeding your private email into a large language model. You get Google-Inbox-style organization without the trade of "let our AI read everything you receive." When we do offer AI assistance, it's something you opt into, not the default price of a tidy inbox.
For anyone handling client communication, financials, or anything they'd rather not have mined, that difference isn't cosmetic.
Coherence Mail connects to your existing Gmail or Microsoft/Outlook account. You're not migrating to a new provider, not forwarding, not emailing 400 contacts a new address. You connect the account you already use and get the better client on top of it. Your email stays yours.
This is the real gap Notion Mail never closed. It was a better inbox—but still just an inbox. Coherence is an XRM (Anything Relationship Management) platform: email, calendar, contacts, deals, tasks, and custom records in one place.
What that unlocks in day-to-day use:
With Notion Mail you triaged your inbox and then went somewhere else to do the work it generated. With Coherence, the inbox and the work are the same surface.
You adopted Notion Mail, rebuilt your habits, and eighteen months later got a shutdown date. We're not going to pretend any company can promise permanence—but Coherence Mail isn't a standalone bet that gets cut in a strategy shuffle. It's one surface of a platform that businesses run their operations on. The incentive is to keep it running, not wind it down.
| Notion Mail | Coherence Mail | |
|---|---|---|
| Status | Shutting down Sept 22, 2026 | Actively developed |
| Saved Views | Yes | Yes |
| Smart categories | Yes (AI-assisted) | Yes (deterministic, private) |
| Command palette (⌘K) | — | Yes |
| Encryption at rest | No | Yes |
| Works with your Gmail/Outlook | Built on Gmail | Gmail + Outlook |
| Contacts / CRM built in | No | Yes |
| Automations & AI agents | No | Yes |
| Standalone app or full platform | Standalone inbox | Unified workspace |
You've got until September 22 to move—but the sooner you connect, the sooner your new inbox starts learning your world.
Is Coherence Mail free? You can start free. Coherence has a free tier, with paid plans as your team and needs grow—so you can move off Notion Mail without a billing decision on day one.
Do I have to leave Gmail or Outlook? No. Coherence Mail sits on top of the account you already have. You keep your address and your existing mail.
Will my smart categories be as good as Notion's? They cover the same everyday buckets—Travel, Purchases, Finance, Newsletters—and they do it without sending your email through an AI model. If anything, the trade of "organized and private" is the upgrade.
What happens to email I've already received? You connect your existing mailbox and work from it directly—your history comes with your Gmail/Outlook account.
Is this really just for salespeople? No. If you run any relationship-driven work—consulting, an agency, a service business, freelancing—having your inbox connected to the people and projects behind it is the whole point.
Notion Mail proved people will switch email clients for a better experience. Its shutdown proves a standalone inbox is a fragile thing to build your day around.
Coherence Mail keeps the experience you switched for—Views, smart categories, speed—and fixes the two things a lone inbox never could: it protects what's inside your mail, and it connects that mail to the work it creates.
You need a new home for your email before September 22. Make it one you won't have to leave again.
https://www.producthunt.com/products/openpartner
Grow your revenue with partnerships. Launch affiliate, referral, and creator programs with clear terms, trusted attribution, creator discovery, and direct Stripe payouts.
Hey Hunters! I'm back again with my second upcoming launch on ProductHunt. Curious what you think of the product and any tips for making it successful.
OpenPartner helps brands launch affiliate, referral, and creator partner programs with built-in partner discovery, visible commission terms, and direct Stripe payouts. Brands get partner program software and a marketplace for recruiting. Creators get real offers and keep what they earn.
I’ve been spending a lot of time learning how affiliate and referral programs work, especially in B2B/SaaS.
It started because I was trying to better understand distribution. I came across efficient app on YouTube, which is a husband-and-wife team that reviews B2B software. After looking into their process, I realized a big part of the model is partnering with the software companies they review and earning a commission when someone signs up.
That sent me down the affiliate/partner network rabbit hole.
I looked at tools like Dub, PartnerStack, Rewardful, FirstPromoter, and a few others. A few things stood out:
All of that led me to build OpenPartner.
The idea is to create a more open partner network for affiliate/referral programs, with flexible pricing, transparent program terms, and strong attribution tracking.
It’s still early, but I’m building in public and trying to learn from both sides: companies that want partner-led distribution, and affiliates/creators/consultants who want trustworthy programs to promote.
If you’ve used affiliate/partner networks before, what do you think is most broken: discovery, attribution, pricing, payouts, or something else?
I’ve been trying to get better at distribution lately, especially around affiliate and referral programs for B2B/SaaS products.
The rabbit hole started when I came across efficient.app on YouTube. They’re a husband-and-wife team reviewing B2B software, and I noticed their business model seems to rely heavily on partner/affiliate relationships with the tools they recommend.
That led me to look into the software and networks behind these programs. I found Dub.co, signed up, and realized their partner network is only available on enterprise plans. Their regular plan still starts around $80/month plus a percentage of revenue, but you’re mostly bringing your own partners. I also looked at PartnerStack, which seems powerful but is even more expensive.
That made me think there’s room for something different: a more open and flexible partner network with modern attribution tracking, but without enterprise-only access or heavy pricing gates.
So I built and launched OpenPartner this week: https://openpartner.dev
The goal is to help companies create affiliate/referral programs and give partners an easier way to discover programs they can promote.
It’s still very early, so I’m building in public and trying to learn from both sides:
Right now I’m especially thinking through:
Would love feedback from anyone who has built or used affiliate/referral programs. What would you want from a new partner network?
I’ve been trying to get better at distribution lately, especially around affiliate and referral programs for https://getcoherence.io (the XRM platform I've been building).
The rabbit hole started when I came across efficient.app on YouTube. They’re a husband-and-wife team reviewing B2B software, and I noticed their business model seems to rely heavily on partner/affiliate relationships with the tools they recommend.
That led me to look into the software and networks behind these programs. I found dub.co, signed up, and realized their partner network is only available on enterprise plans. Their regular plan still starts around $80/month plus a percentage of revenue, but you still have to find your own partners. I also looked at PartnerStack, which seems powerful but is even more expensive.
That made me think there’s room for something different: a more open and flexible partner network with modern attribution tracking, but without enterprise-only access or heavy pricing gates.
So I built and launched OpenPartner this week: https://openpartner.dev
The goal is to help companies create affiliate/referral programs and give partners an easier way to discover programs they can promote.
It’s still very early, so I’m building in public and trying to learn from both sides:
Right now I’m especially thinking through:
Would love feedback from anyone who has built or used affiliate/referral programs. What would you want from a new partner network?
I’ve been looking more closely at affiliate and referral software lately, especially for B2B/SaaS programs, and I’m curious what people here care about most.
From what I’ve seen, a lot of tools seem to focus on similar things: referral links, dashboards, payouts, attribution, partner portals, etc. But the pricing and access models vary a lot. Some platforms are pretty expensive, and some seem to reserve their partner networks or more advanced attribution features for higher-tier plans.
For those of you who actively promote affiliate programs, what matters most when deciding whether to use or recommend a platform?
Is it:
I recently started building an open source affiliate/referral platform after running into some of these gaps myself, so I’m trying to better understand what actually matters to affiliates and partners, not just what software companies think they need.
Curious what your must-haves are, and what usually makes you avoid a platform.
I’ve been trying to better understand how people find affiliate and referral programs to promote, especially in B2B software.
I recently went down a rabbit hole after finding efficient.app on YouTube. They review B2B tools and seem to monetize by becoming partners for the software they cover, earning a percentage when someone signs up through their site.
That led me to look into the partner network they use, Dub. I signed up, but realized their partner network is only available on enterprise plans. Their regular plans still start around $80/month plus a percentage of revenue, and even then you need to find your own partners.
I also looked at PartnerStack, which seems strong but expensive.
So I’m curious: if you’re promoting affiliate programs, do you usually join multiple networks to find offers, or do you mostly stick with one? And for B2B/SaaS specifically, where do you usually discover good programs?
This whole process made me think there’s room for a more open partner network with modern attribution tracking and more flexible pricing, so I recently launched openpartner.dev. Still early, but I’d love to better understand how affiliate marketers actually search for programs and what’s missing from the current networks.