Corroso wires into your tickets, feature requests, and codebase — then turns a raw idea into a cited scope that answers both questions that matter: should we build it, and can we, cheaply? Every claim links to its source. Then it drafts the tickets to put it in motion.
Team collaboration appears in 28% of support tickets1 and is the #2 most-requested feature2. Two enterprise accounts representing $48k ARR3 named it a renewal blocker. Build cost is low — your codebase already has a real-time presence layer4, so this is ~3 weeks, not ~10.
Point Corroso at where your customers already talk — and, if you like, at your codebase. Every source connects the same way; one high-signal source is enough to start.
Describe what you're considering in plain language. Corroso retrieves every relevant ticket, request, and metric — with provenance kept on each one.
A PRD and MVP scope where every claim links to its source, plus an evidence panel. Then Corroso drafts the implementation tickets — codebase-informed — for you to review and push. You commit; it never writes on its own.
Every build decision is two questions — is there demand, and is it feasible. Corroso answers both from your own evidence: demand from your tickets and feature requests, feasibility from your codebase. A raw chatbot can't hold both on one bus and cite them. That's the difference.
If Corroso can't link a quantitative claim to an ingested source, it says “no internal evidence found” — it never invents a number to fill the gap.
You'll never see “expected revenue: $145,000.” You get ranges with explicit assumptions and a confidence band — or an honest abstain.
revenue simulation is excluded from v1, on purposeEvery report carries an Evidence panel listing exactly which tickets, requests, and metrics were used — and which were considered but left out.
The output is a draft you own and edit. We measure the share of PRDs shipped with minimal edits as our own quality signal — not the other way around.
The cheap IC tier is a crowded race to the bottom. The incumbents are built for enterprise. Corroso is the under-served middle: the startup Head of Product who needs evidence, not just output.
| Corroso | ChatPRD | Productboard / Aha! | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Generates a PRD & MVP scope | |||
| Wired to your own customer data | enterprise setup | ||
| Every claim cites a source | |||
| Reads your codebase for feasibility | |||
| Drafts the tickets into Jira / Linear | manual | ||
| No false-precision numbers | varies | ||
| Priced as a team tool | $15–29 IC | ||
| Built for the seed/Series-A HoP | IC-first |
Corroso is the evidence layer in your product team's build loop. It connects to your tickets, feature requests, and codebase, turns an idea into a cited PRD and MVP scope — is there demand, and is it feasible? — then drafts the Jira/Linear tickets. Every claim links to its source.
A chatbot can't hold your live tickets and your private codebase on one connection and cite both. Corroso stays wired to your data, gives you verifiable clickable citations instead of a one-off paste-in, and drafts the tickets that put the decision in motion.
Heads of Product, VPs of Product, and technical founders/CTOs at seed and Series-A startups who own build decisions and have no product-ops team or analyst to delegate to.
No. If Corroso can't link a claim to a real source, it says "no internal evidence found" instead of inventing a figure. It avoids false precision and excludes revenue simulation on purpose — a projection can't cite a source.
Seed or Series-A, a small product team, no analyst to delegate to. If decisions ride on you and you're tired of defending guesses — request access, and we'll reach out personally.