Looking for brutally honest feedback on my AI CV tool before I push harder on growth

One angle not covered yet: even a perfectly tailored CV is still a self-authored claim, and recruiters increasingly discount those precisely because tools like yours (and ChatGPT) make them cheap to produce. The applicants winning right now pair the polished CV with something they can't self-author: work samples, referrals, references. You can't build all that, but you could position around it: GhostAI as the tool that makes the CV stop losing you the screen, while being honest that the CV alone won't win the offer. That honesty would also fix the hero/FAQ contradiction someone flagged. What does your retention look like after a user's first application round?

Building on the ChatGPT-comparison point others raised: the flip side is that "best AI CV tools" is itself something people now ask ChatGPT and Perplexity directly. So the same free-tool that's your objection is also your discovery channel — if those models don't name GhostAI when someone asks, you're invisible right where your buyer is looking. Worth checking what they actually say before you pour budget into growth.

That pushback on the name is worth taking seriously, "ghost" already has a strong negative meaning in job hunting specifically, so it's actively working against trust before anyone reads a word of copy. The ChatGPT comparison is the harder one to answer honestly though, what does this actually do that pasting a CV into a free chat tool doesn't, that's the real positioning gap to close first before growth spend makes any sense.

Hi! I love this idea -- just added you on Linkedin..

1. On /ghost, "GhostAI Career Coach" is hard to read -- was that intentional?

• May be in violation of whatever disability fcc standards there are.

2. On /ghost, streamlining "Target Role" AND "Or type any custom role (optional)" to just "Type Role Name" with the option to save will enhance UX.

3. Prior to the sign up page, I had the option of "Rewrite CV". After logging, I can't find this.

could you tell more to let us try it, i had already made something similar last year but didn't advanced on it ,so i think i could have advices

On the name/positioning: "GhostAI" sits uncomfortably close to "ghostwriting" and "ghosting employers with AI content" — in a category where employers are already wary of AI-generated applications, this name could work against you rather than for you.
Your headline and FAQ contradict each other: The hero promises to help you "stop getting ignored," but your FAQ says GhostAI "cannot guarantee interviews, job offers, or employment outcomes." That's a fair legal disclaimer, but it directly undercuts the emotional promise at the top of the page.
The testimonials read as fabricated: "Graduate Applicant, London," "Career Switcher, Manchester," "Tech Applicant, Birmingham" — no names, no photos, no LinkedIn. In a market already full of AI-generated everything, anonymous testimonials with suspiciously polished quotes actively hurt credibility rather than build it, whether they're real or not.
"Built in public" isn't actually shown: You reference session analytics and distribution tests, but there's no visible changelog, roadmap, or public build artifact anywhere on the site.
The biggest unanswered question: why should someone use this instead of just pasting their CV and the job description into ChatGPT for free? That's the first thing a skeptical visitor will think, and the site never addresses it — no mention of a proprietary scoring model, unique data, or clear UX advantage over the free alternative.
Minor friction point: you say "free to start, no signup required," but the CTA button goes straight to a signup page.

before pushing on growth, the thing i'd get brutally honest about isn't the tool, it's whether you know exactly WHO gets the most value and WHERE they already hang out. ai cv tools are crowded, so "push harder on growth" only works if you're narrow - "cv tool for career-switchers into tech" beats "cv tool for everyone". what's the one type of person it's undeniably best for?

From the hiring side, I'll add this: keyword-matched resumes get people through the screen, but if it doesn't match how they actually talk about their experience later, that gap shows up in the interview and looks worse than a slightly weaker resume would have. If GhostAI helped people practice explaining what it's highlighting, not just polish the wording, that'd make it stand out to me.

The risk I'd watch for is becoming another "better resume" tool in a category that's already crowded.

Most applicants don't actually want a stronger CV—they want more interviews. The closer GhostAI can connect its recommendations to that outcome, the easier it'll be for people to justify using it over the alternatives.