1
1 Comment

Looking for 3–5 beta users for Luter — a productivity SaaS that plans your day around your real commitments

I’ve been building Luter, a B2B productivity SaaS designed for people who have tasks, emails and calendar commitments scattered across different places and struggle to turn all of that into a realistic daily plan.

Luter brings those pieces together and helps you decide what to work on, when to do it, and what can realistically fit into your day.

It already includes:

task and follow-up management
daily planning and timeboxing
inbox-to-task workflow
Gmail integration
Google Calendar integration
Outlook Email and Outlook Calendar integrations
reminders and calendar syncing

The product is functional now. At this point, I don’t want to keep adding features based only on my own assumptions.

I’m looking for 3–5 people who would actually use Luter with their real work for a few days and give me candid feedback.

I’d especially like to hear:

What feels genuinely useful?
What is confusing or unnecessary?
What would stop you from using it regularly?
Is the core problem Luter is solving important enough to you?

I’m not looking for compliments or vanity sign-ups. I’d much rather have a few people tell me exactly where the product falls short.

If you regularly work with email + calendar + a long list of things to get done, you’re probably the kind of person I’d like to hear from.

You can join the beta here:

https://www.getluter.com/beta.html

If you’re interested, leave a comment or send me a message. I’ll personally follow the beta and the feedback.

Thanks!

on August 15, 2026
  1. 1

    For five beta users, narrow the role more than the feature set. Pick one profile, such as client-facing operators with calendar-heavy days, and define a daily commitment: connect accounts, accept or edit the proposed plan each morning, and close the day with a two-minute review. Measure planned versus completed work, manual reschedules, and whether they return without prompting. Those behaviors will tell you more than a general usefulness rating.