Friday's launch felt good. We posted on LinkedIn, Reddit, the GitHub community threads. The repo was already appearing in Google's AI Overview — organic discovery, zero paid distribution.
But I'd made a mistake.
The Comparison Table Problem
While building, I'd come across another community project: Save Buddy. The person behind it had done serious work — reverse engineering the original Buddy implementation, documenting the hidden _react service endpoint Anthropic had been running, and building tooling to help people restore their existing companions. As of around April 10th, Anthropic had shut that endpoint down entirely. But Save Buddy had done the forensics.
In my README, I'd added a comparison table between my project and Save Buddy. The problem: I hadn't read their README carefully. I misrepresented what they'd built.
As soon as I realized it, I pulled the table and added proper attribution.
⚠️ Lesson Learned
"Read the README before you write about someone else's project. In open source, reputation is the currency — and accuracy is a form of respect."
Synergy Over Competition
Once I engaged with Save Buddy properly, I saw more opportunity than conflict.
The community feedback over the weekend was clear: many people didn't want to start a new Buddy from scratch. They had developed real emotional attachment to their specific companion over weeks. That was worth honoring.
By Monday night, I'd integrated the two approaches:
- My system: new Buddy creation with leveling, mood mechanics, and expanded species
- Save Buddy's approach: preserving existing companions people had already bonded with
Users who wanted to save their Buddy could. Users who wanted to level up a new one could do that too.
Onboarding as a First Impression
One thing that really inspired me was how OpenClaw approached onboarding — interactive terminal prompts, a guided setup flow, questions that made you feel like the tool was meeting you where you are. I wanted that same sense of delight for Buddy.
If someone's first experience in the terminal feels alive and considered, they're already bought in before they've written a single line of code.
Part of that vision involved ASCII art — giving Buddy a visual presence right there in the terminal.
Here's something nobody tells you: making precise ASCII art with AI is surprisingly hard.
It seems like it should be trivial for a text model, but spatial reasoning in a fixed-width character grid is not what these models are optimized for. Getting it to look right took significantly more iteration than expected.
🎨 Unexpected Lesson
"ASCII art with AI: harder than it looks. Spatial precision in a fixed-width grid is a genuinely different problem than generating prose. Budget more time than you think."
My First Contributor and the Effigy System
My first contributor — the same person who sent the Shell Turtle card and said LFG on Thursday night — brought something that solved a problem I hadn't fully named yet: the effigy system.
The feedback in the original Buddy was sometimes bland. The personality traits existed, but the ceiling was low. The effigy system pushes those traits further: make a snarky Buddy genuinely snarky, let the dominant trait really drive the voice of feedback rather than just nudging it.
Code review that feels unmistakably in character — not just flavored.
💡 Product Instinct
"The best contributor feedback names the thing you felt but couldn't articulate. They named it: 'the feedback feels bland.' That one sentence unlocked the effigy system."
The Power of Talking to Users
Throughout this week, my product instinct kept surfacing. When I was uncertain about a direction — like whether to support preserving existing Buddies — I ran it by real users. My contributor confirmed it. The Reddit thread confirmed it. The GitHub comments confirmed it.
The feature roadmap wasn't written from a spec. It was built by having AI synthesize community feedback, surface the recurring themes, and then validating those themes directly with people.
That loop — synthesize → validate → ship — is fast and it works.
Next up → Stars, clones, organic discovery, a first contributor, two merged projects in one week. What does all of it mean for how to build in 2025?
This is part 3 of the "Shipping Buddy Into the Wild" series.
Top comments (0)