Tool review standards

Version 1.6 · Effective 2026-10-19 · Change log

This page sets out the standards VibeCodePicks applies to every tool submitted for listing. The same standards apply to every submitter. When we make a decision on a submission, we refer to the relevant section of this page.

1. Scope

VibeCodePicks is a directory that helps users compare and choose AI tools by their goals. We consider submissions in the following areas:

• AI code editors, terminal and asynchronous coding agents, and AI code review tools
• AI app and website builders, and backends commonly used with them
• AI agent frameworks, multi-agent and workflow builders, and no-code agent tools
• Infrastructure used to build with AI: LLM API routers, local LLM runners, agent sandboxes and headless browsers for agents
• AI documentation tools for codebases and coding agents
• AI video, image, voice and 3D generation tools
• AI tools for game development, and tools for making games with AI
• Independent projects built with AI that are publicly usable
• Open-source projects in any of these areas (see 2.2)

Tools outside these areas are generally declined as out of scope (see reason 6.4).

2. Submission requirements

Submissions are made through the free submission form on our website (no account needed). Every submission goes into the same review queue and is reviewed the same way. We do not accept submissions by email. Choose the submission type that fits your tool: a commercial product or an open-source project.

2.1 Commercial products: what counts as a live product

A product counts as live only if it meets all four of the following:

1. Open access: anyone can access and use it directly. A waitlist, invitation-only, pre-sale or "coming soon" page does not count; paid products that work right after payment are fine.
2. Working core features: the core features genuinely work. A mock-up, a demo that only shows sample output, or fake data does not count.
3. Stable official URL: the product has a stable official web address, not a temporary test or preview link.
4. Maintained: the product has been updated or maintained within the last 90 days.

Required for commercial products:

1. A live product as defined above.
2. Official website. The product's own website, operated by the team that makes it.
3. Demo video. Supplied by the team and meeting the demo video requirements (section 2.4). Any publicly reachable link works; it does not have to be on YouTube.
4. Pricing or free-tier page. A public page that states what the product costs, or what can be used for free.
5. Contact email. An address where we can send review notices.
6. Optional: GitHub repository URL. Only if the tool has a public repository. Many tools do not, and this does not affect the review.

2.2 Open-source projects

We list good open-source projects, including early ones. Required:

1. Installable: an installable release (for example a package, binary or extension) or clear install steps.
2. Open-source license: a recognised open-source license in the repository.
3. Active: commits within the last 6 months.
4. README: a README that explains what the project does.
5. Public repository URL, a demo video and a contact email. You supply your own demo video, meeting the demo video requirements (section 2.4). A video file in your repository or a GitHub release asset is fine.

The repository can serve as the official website, so a separate website or pricing page is not needed; just state any real costs to use the project (for example, a required paid API). Open-source projects use this 6-month activity window instead of the 90-day window in 2.1. Supporting evidence such as GitHub stars, discussion on social platforms, or being used or referenced by other projects counts in a project's favour, but there is no hard minimum (for example, no star threshold), so new projects are not excluded. The core features must still genuinely work (2.1, point 2).

2.3 Optional: independent user feedback

If you have them, send at least 5 links from at least 2 different platforms to genuine reviews or posts by users who are not part of your team, or screenshots that include the original source (for example, the post URL and author). We gather the rest independently. Feedback without a verifiable source is not accepted. Feedback affects placement, not whether a live product is listed.

2.4 Demo video requirements (all submission types)

The same requirements apply to every submission type: commercial products, open-source projects and Arena entries that include a video. The video must meet these requirements, and only these:

1. Shows what the product does.
2. Is clear (readable and in focus).
3. Is at least 3 seconds long.
4. Leaks no private data (for example personal details, API keys or customer data).
5. Has no malicious or misleading calls to action.

It does not have to be on YouTube. Any publicly reachable video link is accepted: a direct .mp4 or .webm file (a GitHub release asset or a file in your repository is fine), Vimeo or YouTube. We embed the video directly on our site; for video files not on YouTube we may host a copy ourselves so the page stays fast and the video stays available.

No video yet? Video production by VibeCodePicks is available as a paid service. Our videos follow the style of our product-intro screencasts (see the templates below): no real person on camera, clean UI animation. You can also record the video yourself; any recording that meets the requirements above is accepted.

Video production prices (USD, one-off):

• Lite, US$29: we polish your own screen recording into a 15–20 second clip, with English captions and light music; 1 revision; delivered in 2–3 business days.
• Standard, US$69 (recommended): a 30–45 second video in your chosen template style, with a short script and optional AI voiceover; English captions; up to 2 revisions; 4–6 business days.
• Plus, US$129: a 45–60 second video plus a vertical 9:16 cut; 2 revisions; 6–8 business days.

Every package supports Template A, B or C. Packages set the length, included work, revisions and delivery time; templates set the visual style. Choose them separately on the submission form.

If the product has many features, you decide which features or workflows to highlight. We ask for reasonable materials: the product link, a test account or access if needed, the 1–3 key features to show, logo and brand colours, and your own recording if you choose Lite. For a video that includes a hands-on review, we can try the product and record it ourselves. The delivery clock starts once the materials are complete. Ordering or paying for video production never affects listing or review decisions. Ordering opens soon — there is no payment link yet; tick the video production option on the submission form and we will contact you.

3. How we verify

If an item is missing or cannot be checked, we first ask for it (see timeline) rather than declining.

4. Placement and user feedback

• Homepage and comparison pages: tools that meet all requirements and meet the user feedback threshold below are listed on the homepage and can be included in our comparison, alternatives and use-case pages where relevant.
• Homepage only: tools that meet all requirements but are below the threshold are listed on the homepage only. They are considered for comparison pages again once they reach it.

Rankings are never sold. When two tools match equally well, the one with an exclusive VCP user coupon is marked.

User feedback threshold for comparison pages

A handful of reviews cannot represent how a whole market sees a tool, so comparison pages use a published minimum:

1. At least 10 independent user reviews or posts about the tool,
2. from at least 2 different platforms (for example X, Reddit, Hacker News, Product Hunt, YouTube or blogs),
3. all published within the last 6 months.

How we count:

• At most 2 posts per account count.
• Posts by the vendor's staff or partners, and posts containing affiliate or referral links, do not count.
• Links supplied by the vendor make up at most half of the sample; we gather the rest ourselves through public search, so the sample is not chosen by the vendor.
• Videos we produce for a fee and Arena entries don't count as independent user feedback.
• Fewer than 10 qualifying posts: the tool is listed on the homepage only.
• We resample every 90 days. A tool that falls below the threshold moves to homepage only until it qualifies again.

The threshold is about how much independent evidence exists, not about whether the evidence is positive. Positive, mixed and negative posts all count, and we show them as they are. For transparency, a tool's community feedback is published with its data: the number of posts sampled (as in "Based on N public posts" and "N mentions" on our pages), the platforms they come from, the date range, and the positive, mixed and negative split, counted per point rather than per post (one post can back several points). Each tool page has a "Community feedback data" table per use case: mentions, then the posts behind its recurring praise (positive), disputed points marked "Split" (mixed) and criticism (negative). We show only what we sampled; a tool with no sampled posts says so.

Order within pages follows our editorial method, which is based on public community sentiment and the user's stated goal, and is the same for submitted and non-submitted tools.

5. Labels

• Vendor submitted: shown on listings that were added from a submission by the product's team or maker. The listing information was provided by that team and checked by us under these standards.
• No label: tools we selected and researched ourselves, including tools recommended by the community.

6. Reasons we may decline

A declined submission receives one of the following reasons, which links to the matching item below.

1. Not a live product (not-public). The product does not yet meet our definition of a live product (section 2.1): for example, waitlist or pre-sale only, or core features are only a demo or mock-up.
2. Website or key links not accessible (links-broken). The official website or key links could not be accessed.
3. Information could not be verified (unverifiable). The submitted information could not be verified.
4. Outside our scope (out-of-scope). The product is outside the scope of our directory.
5. Already listed (duplicate). The tool is already listed on VibeCodePicks.

We may also decline submissions that are spam, misleading, unlawful, or that copy another product without meaningful differences; these are recorded as "information could not be verified" or "outside our scope", as applicable.

7. What never influences listing or ranking

• Inclusion and ranking are not for sale. No payment, gift or commercial arrangement affects whether a tool is listed, where it is placed, or how it is ranked.
• Personal or business relationships with the submitting team do not affect the review.
• We do not require a backlink, a badge or any promotion of VibeCodePicks in return for a listing.
• Every submission is reviewed against the same published standards on this page.
• Our Open Call & Arena is a separate exposure programme with an entry fee. Taking part (or winning) does not list a tool or change its ranking. Arena votes and voters' reasons can be submitted as user feedback evidence, which is then counted under section 4 like any other evidence.

8. Review timeline, resubmission and appeals

1. Acknowledgement: sent immediately after submission, as a comment on the submission and by email.
2. Review: submissions are reviewed in the order received. We aim to complete a review within 7 days; this is a target, not a guarantee.
3. Result: one of: listed (homepage and comparison pages, or homepage only), more information needed, or not listed. Each result is posted on the submission and emailed to the contact address.
4. More information needed: the notice lists exactly what is missing. Reply to the notice email (or on the submission) to add it, and the review resumes. If there is no reply within 14 days, the submission is closed for now; this is not a final decision.
5. Resubmission: a closed or declined submission can be submitted again at any time through the submission page once the issue has been resolved.
6. Appeals: if you believe a decision was made in error, reply to the notice email (or on the submission) and we will review it again.

9. Updates, corrections and removal

• Listed teams can request updates at any time (for example, new pricing, features or demo video) by replying to any of our notice emails, on their submission, or through our correction form.
• Anyone can report inaccurate information with a source link; we correct verified errors.
• We may update or remove a listing if the product goes offline or is discontinued, changes materially, or if listing information is found to be inaccurate. A removed tool can be submitted again once the issue is resolved.

10. How submission data is handled

• Website form: each submission is stored only in our own database (Upstash Redis) and reviewed by us; nothing is posted publicly to GitHub. Your contact email is stored privately there and is visible only to the VibeCodePicks team.
• We use the contact email only to send the acknowledgement and review notices for that submission, and to read your replies. We do not add it to our newsletter or share it. You can ask us to delete it at any time.
• To prevent spam, the website form uses a hidden field, a minimum fill time and a per-network rate limit based on a one-way hash of your IP address (the IP address itself is not stored). The same website can be submitted once per 24 hours.
• The same applies to Arena entries made through the website form (choose "Arena entry" as the submission type).
• Review notices are sent from newsletter@send.vibecodepicks.com. You can reply to any notice by email. See our Privacy Policy for more.

11. Change log

Changes to these standards are recorded here with a new version number. A submission is reviewed under the version in effect when the review is made.

Submit a tool for free →

See also: Submit page · Open Call & Arena · About · Privacy · Contact