Early-stage startup validating a workspace to reduce context loss — looking for test users
I’m building OMNEX, which started as an internal tool after repeatedly hitting the same issue in startup work: not a lack of tools, but losing context between them.
In a typical startup day, decisions happen in chat, tasks live in a project board, files are elsewhere, meetings add more threads — and after an interruption or handoff, a lot of time is spent just reconstructing what’s going on before real work starts.
OMNEX is testing a simple idea:
Keep conversations, tasks, files, meetings, and decisions tied to the same work context, so teams can resume faster without app-hopping or rereading history.
Current state
• Live beta (no pricing, no credit card)
• Early users testing real workflows
• Focused on validation, not scale
Who I’m hoping to hear from
• Startup founders or early employees
• Teams working async or cross-functional
• Anyone feeling the drag of context switching more than the work itself
I’m looking for people willing to try it briefly and give honest feedback — what helps, what doesn’t, and where this breaks down.
If that resonates, you can request early access here:
👉 https://omnex.tech
This problem — losing context between tools and handoffs — really resonates. So much time in early-stage workflows goes into re-surfacing context instead of doing real work, especially when async handoffs or interruptions pile up.
One thing I’ve noticed in teams that struggle with context is that they often overload one channel (like email or chat) and end up repeating decisions instead of anchoring them to a shared object of truth. A system that ties decisions/tasks/files together before interruptions happen could be a huge differentiator.
Curious — in your early beta tests, have you seen a particular moment (like coming back after a break vs switching projects) where context loss is most painful? Understanding that could help prioritize which workflow pinch points matter most.
In our experience, the pain hits ICs first (they’re the ones losing time hunting context), but action usually starts when a team lead gets repeated symptoms: missed handoffs, duplicated decisions, slow onboarding, and ‘where are we?’ meetings. Leadership typically cares once it shows up as delivery risk (slips, rework, incident coordination). So the usual champion is a team lead / ops-minded PM who feels the drag daily and can trial it with a small team without a big migration. That’s why OMNEX is designed to run alongside existing tools first—prove it reduces re-entry time, then expand
That makes a lot of sense — especially the point about delivery risk being the real trigger, not individual frustration.
I’ve seen the same pattern: IC pain creates noise, but repeated breakdowns (missed handoffs, rework, “where are we?” loops) are what finally justify intervention.
Designing it to run alongside existing tools first feels like the right call — proving re-entry time reduction before asking teams to change habits is a much lower-friction wedge.
Curious to see how consistently that signal holds across different team sizes.