# Marcus Webb, QA Lead at Lendio (SaaS, ~130 people) — read of Intuned, June 9 2026

> 7 years maintaining test suites, currently responsible for 400+ Playwright specs that break every time the design team ships a new component library.

## How I got here

Googled "playwright selectors breaking after CSS module update" on my lunch break. Third result was a dev.to post where someone mentioned this in the comments, saying "there's a thing called Intuned that's trying to fix exactly this." Opened it on my phone, then pulled it up on my laptop when I got back to my desk. That was 20 minutes ago and I'm still confused about what I'm looking at.

## What I clicked first

The hero got me. "Stop rebuilding automations when websites change" is a real sentence about a real problem I had at 9am this morning. I opened the tab in good faith. Then I read "Deploy once, run forever." and that's where my eyebrow went up. That phrase has been on 40 different tools I've tried since 2019. None of them meant it.

## Where I paused

Halfway down the page there's a section with a score: "64/100 Adoptability," "$-18,000 Year-1 take-home (Fermi)," "1 in 8 Meaningful-success odds." I had to read it three times because I assumed it was a testimonial or a benchmark comparison. It's not. It's the company scoring their own idea as a business to build. Then the pricing is "$5 for a dossier" and "$99 to adopt the build." I came here looking for a tool to buy. This is apparently an idea factory selling me the blueprint to go build this tool myself. I have no idea who this page is actually for, and I've been in software for seven years.

## What I distrusted

"Honest disclosure: we don't have live customers on this idea yet." That sentence is doing a lot of work and I don't think it's earning it. The word "honest" shows up four times on this page. Companies with actual customers don't usually have to say "honest" that many times. Also, the page self-scores "landing page quality: 4/10" -- which is either the most self-aware thing I've seen on a product page, or the most broken way to build trust. It's genuinely on the page. Right there. On the landing page.

## What would convince me

If this is a real product I can integrate with Playwright, I want one sentence that says "you add this SDK to your existing test file, it wraps your selectors, and here's a 30-line before/after diff." No narrative, no features list, just the code. If it's an idea kit for founders, I want that to be the very first thing on the page so I don't waste five minutes figuring that out. One or the other. Not both layered on top of each other.

## What I'd ask in an email reply

1. When you say "auto-heals broken automations without manual intervention," what does that mean at the selector level specifically? Does it use AI to find the new selector, does it fall back to visual matching, does it guess based on proximity in the DOM? The mechanism matters a lot for whether I can trust it in CI.
2. Is there a working product I can run against a test suite today, or is this genuinely pre-code and you're selling the strategy to build it?
3. The page says "no vendor lock-in, no proprietary agents" -- but if your healing logic is a black box running in your cloud, how is that not vendor lock-in?

## Verdict: on-the-fence

The problem statement is real and the hero copy nailed it, so I stayed. But the page is two products stacked on each other -- an automation tool for developers and a startup-idea kit for founders -- and I can't figure out which one I'm reading. If there's actual working code behind this, someone needs to say so plainly and show me a line of it.

---
*Memo by skeptic persona, generated 2026-06-09. Studio breaks own self-grading loop.*