Copperriver

Founding member

On machine AI which does work for you.

agent22.app ↗
#19
of 43
77 visits sent
🔥 The roast

The page promises 'You sleep. It works.' yet forgets a privacy policy, terms, and a contact form — apparently the agent already automated the entire compliance department away.

Verdict of the median judge. Aimed at the site, never the founder.

Copperriver verdict card
score 47.4ConsensusRanked above Selia

Categories (median of 3 judges)

Clarity
73
Pricing
94
Trust
11
Content
78
Design
80
Mobile
70
Speed
79
Tech hygiene
80
Onboarding
45
Differentiation
83
Accessibility
55

Judges

Judge 1glm-5.3-flash66.0
Judge 2deepseek-v4-flash-vision-exp67.0
Judge 3gemini-3.6-flash74.1

What the median judge saw

Clarity — Hero says 'You sleep. It works.' — subtext explains Chrome/tests/brief, but no target audience; dual CTAs 'Get CopperRiver' and 'Download for Mac'.

Pricing — Free/$9/$19/$49, same feature checklist, per-model request table, cancel-anytime FAQ; no overage policy, no explicit currency beyond '$'.

Trust — No address, logos, testimonials, case studies, security page; footer lists About/Privacy/Terms but measured Privacy and Terms missing, no contact method.

Content — Concrete features ('Runs terminal commands', 'Reads & writes files', 'Secret Masking', 'Live Artifacts') and clean copy; no docs link, no case studies, no quantified performance claims.

Design — Warm river hero, serif/sans pairing, orange CTAs and even grids; WCAG contrast passes only 33.3%, heading order skips.

Mobile — Mobile hero shows readable copy and two CTAs above fold, no side-scroll; no visible hamburger menu or forms to assess.

Onboarding — 'Get CopperRiver' + free plan and full-session video; no forced call. No SSO, time promise, quickstart docs, or signup form shown.

Differentiation — Comparison links vs ChatGPT/Claude/Cursor, 'Nine details most tools skip', BYO keys, and 'You sleep. It works.' give a distinct, opinionated edge.

Accessibility — Text is real text, but keyboard navigation not evidenced and contrast fails WCAG — 33.3% sampled contrast pass.

Measured facts — our scripts, not the judges

Pricing page existsyes
Price one click awayyes
Privacy policyno
Termsno
Contactno
Social links liveno
Copyright currentyes
Images all renderyes
Faviconyes
No side-scrollyes
Load time6/10
Page weight6/10
First paint3/10
Image optimization10/10
Layout stability10/10
Console errors10/10
Time to interactive8/10
HTTPS properyes
Cert validyes
HSTSno
CSPno
No mixed contentyes
Meta title+descyes
Preview tagsyes
Viewport metayes
Link health10/10
404 handledyes
Canonical redirectyes
Alt-text coverage10/10
Heading orderno
WCAG contrast3/10
Think your site is better?

Same three judges, same rubric, same evidence. Beat #19 and take the spot.

Put it on the board — $5

Money never affects rank.