How Huddle decides when to actually speak up in a group chat

One question I get a lot about Huddle is how it avoids becoming another noisy bot that everyone mutes within a week.

The rule we landed on is simple: it only replies when someone tags it directly. No auto-jumping in when it thinks it detects an argument, no unsolicited fact checks, no random summaries nobody asked for. If you don't tag it, it says nothing, even if the whole chat is chaos.

That constraint actually made it more useful, not less. People tag it for the boring stuff that used to derail conversations: settling a factual disagreement, pulling up a quick answer, or breaking a tie on a decision nobody wanted to own. Then it gets out of the way.

Still refining the edge cases, like group polls and multi-person tags. Curious how others building chat-based tools have thought about the noise versus usefulness tradeoff.