This product was not featured by Product Hunt yet. It will not be visible on their landing page and won't be ranked (cannot win product of the day regardless of upvotes).
Product upvotes vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product comments vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product upvote speed vs the next 3
Waiting for data. Loading
Product upvotes and comments
Waiting for data. Loading
Product vs the next 3
Loading
To200
From production error to reviewable pull request
To200 captures production errors, groups repeated events, diagnoses likely root causes, writes branch-only fixes, runs available checks, and opens pull requests with the assessment and verification evidence attached. Start free with 1,000 credits and human approval, then move up to Pro, Scale, or High volume as usage grows.
Hi, I'm Albin — solo founder, and To200 exists because I was tired of being my own on-call firefighter.
The gap I kept hitting: monitoring tells you what broke, then leaves you the actual work. So I built the loop that comes after the alert — To200 captures the error, groups the repeats, diagnoses a likely root cause, writes a fix on a branch, runs your checks, and opens a PR with the evidence attached. You review and merge. It never touches main on its own.
The part I trust most I watched happen last night: it wrote a fix, ran it in a sandbox, caught that its own fix failed typecheck — and refused to ship it. That refusal is the product.
If the evidence isn't there, it stops and says what's missing.
Free is 1,000 credits on one repo, no card. GitHub required; Vercel and Supabase optional.
I'd genuinely value skeptical questions — especially about verification evidence, what failure classes it can't handle, and where the automation boundary should sit.
About To200 on Product Hunt
“From production error to reviewable pull request”
To200 was submitted on Product Hunt and earned 0 upvotes and 1 comments, earning #1 Product of the Day. To200 captures production errors, groups repeated events, diagnoses likely root causes, writes branch-only fixes, runs available checks, and opens pull requests with the assessment and verification evidence attached. Start free with 1,000 credits and human approval, then move up to Pro, Scale, or High volume as usage grows.
On the analytics side, To200 competes within Developer Tools, Artificial Intelligence and GitHub — topics that collectively have 1M followers on Product Hunt. The dashboard above tracks how To200 performed against the three products that launched closest to it on the same day.
Who hunted To200?
To200 was hunted by Albin Holmgren. A “hunter” on Product Hunt is the community member who submits a product to the platform — uploading the images, the link, and tagging the makers behind it. Hunters typically write the first comment explaining why a product is worth attention, and their followers are notified the moment they post. Around 79% of featured launches on Product Hunt are self-hunted by their makers, but a well-known hunter still acts as a signal of quality to the rest of the community. See the full all-time top hunters leaderboard to discover who is shaping the Product Hunt ecosystem.
For a complete overview of To200 including community comment highlights and product details, visit the product overview.
Albin Holmgren
Hi, I'm Albin — solo founder, and To200 exists because I was tired of being my own on-call firefighter.
The gap I kept hitting: monitoring tells you what broke, then leaves you the actual work. So I built the loop that comes after the alert — To200 captures the error, groups the repeats, diagnoses a likely root cause, writes a fix on a branch, runs your checks, and opens a PR with the evidence attached. You review and merge. It never touches main on its own.
The part I trust most I watched happen last night: it wrote a fix, ran it in a sandbox, caught that its own fix failed typecheck — and refused to ship it. That refusal is the product.
If the evidence isn't there, it stops and says what's missing.
Free is 1,000 credits on one repo, no card. GitHub required; Vercel and Supabase optional.
I'd genuinely value skeptical questions — especially about verification evidence, what failure classes it can't handle, and where the automation boundary should sit.