Product

It drafts. You decide.

Hand Composer a problem. It reads your evidence, past decisions and launches, proposes a plan for you to approve, then writes the PRD with every claim cited. If the evidence argues against the request, it says so first.

Join the waitlistHow it works
creator-platform · Composer

Creator Payout SLA & Transparency

EFFORTXSSMLXLEstimate
v1 Improve Related Export Save

Problem

Top creators report payout settlement stretching to 5–7 days, up from 48 hours#1#2, driving public threats to pause posting#3.

Evidence

7 of the top 20 creators by GMV raised payout timing in the last 30 days#4; sentiment is 18% negative and rising.

Hypothesis

A guaranteed 48-hour payout SLA with in-app status will cut monetization churn among high-GMV creators.

Proposed Solution

Success Metrics

Queued…

Evidence (4)

Plan first, then draft.

  1. 1

    Describe the problem

    Start from a theme or a sentence, and pick your team's template if you have one.

  2. 2

    It investigates

    Composer searches your signals and reads existing specs, the decision log, measured launches and themes before committing to anything.

  3. 3

    It answers one of three ways

    With a plan of three to five steps, a few multiple-choice questions, or an objection backed by cited evidence.

  4. 4

    You approve, it writes

    Edit the plan, then Approve & draft. Each section is written into a live document you can edit.

A plan you shape before it writes

The plan says how many signals it's grounded in, or flags an evidence gap. Reword steps, reorder them, add or remove one, rename the PRD, then approve.

  • Three to five steps, each one sentence
  • Keep refining in chat before you approve
  • Nothing is drafted until you approve

Here's my plan

Payout delay alerts

Grounded in 23 signals

  1. 1Pull the payout-timing complaints from the Q2 creator interviews and support tickets
  2. 2Frame the problem as unpredictable settlement, not slow payouts
  3. 3Set the success metric on payout-status support tickets
  4. 4Note the dependency on the payout status webhook
Payout delaysCreator monetization
or keep refining in the chat below ↓Approve & draft

It pushes back, with evidence

If customers contradict the request, you already shipped it, or the team decided against it, Composer objects instead of planning. Proceed anyway and your reason is recorded as a decision.

  • Every objection cites the signals, specs or decisions behind it
  • Dispute it once and it re-checks against your reply
  • Or take the alternative it suggests
Draft a spec for instant payouts
A concern before planningWorth reconsidering

You deferred instant payouts in March, and the payout status page already fixed what creators were asking about: not knowing when the money lands.

Evidence

Deferred Mar 2026: Instant payoutsHit · Payout status page#3
Why proceed? One line, optional. It's recorded.
Rethink DisputeProceed anyway

Conflicts, caught after the draft

When a draft is finished, Euler checks it against earlier specs and decisions. A conflict shows both passages side by side, quoted word for word.

  • Reversals, incompatible commitments, superseded decisions and metric conflicts
  • Acknowledging one takes a reason, recorded as a decision
  • Dismissed pairs aren't raised again
Direct reversalMedium confidence
This draft (scope)
Creators can withdraw earnings on demand, any day of the week.
Payout schedule v2 (shipped, scope)
Payouts settle on a fixed weekly schedule. On-demand withdrawal is out of scope.

The draft promises on-demand withdrawal, which the shipped schedule spec ruled out.

Why does this draft supersede it? Required, and recorded as a Decision.
Edit the draftNot a real conflict Acknowledge

The details.

Your templates
Use your team's PRD format, built by hand, pasted in, or imported from a PDF.
Reads the code
Connect a GitHub repo and Composer can read the code it's describing. File paths it never opened are rejected.
Inline rewrite
Select text and press ⌘K. The rewrite comes back as a before and after: Tab accepts, Esc rejects.
Grounded metrics
With PostHog or Amplitude connected, Composer can look up real events and a metric's baseline before it writes a success metric.
Effort estimates
Ask for an estimate that draws on your team's measured delivery times and the roadmap around the work.
Export and hand off
Markdown, PDF, Word or JSON. Push to Linear with sub-issues, to Jira or Notion, or open it in Claude Code or Cursor.

Where it stops.

  • No plan, no draft

    Composer doesn't write a section until you approve its plan.

  • No objections on a hunch

    Finding no evidence, or judging an idea small or hard, is never grounds to object. Only cited evidence is.

  • No borrowed authority

    Citations to passages it never read are rejected, and so are code references to files it never opened.

Questions, answered.

Once you approve the plan, yes: it writes every section into the document in order. Then you edit it like any document, or ask for changes in chat.

Your signals, existing specs, the decision log, measured launches and themes. With a repo connected, the code too, and with analytics connected, your events.

Proceed anyway and give a reason, which is recorded. Or dispute it once: Composer re-checks the evidence against your reply and either withdraws or stands by it.

Keep exploring

Stop drowning in feedback. Start shipping the right thing.

Join the waitlist

We're putting the agents through their paces. When early access opens, the waitlist hears first.