It would make a lot more sense to me if you provided a lighter "intro" version, even if that means it can only run on public repos.
I guess I expected on the homepage or maybe "About" but I was looking for something related to whether you open PRs on my behalf given that OAuth prompt.
I think adding that or some explanation during onboarding about the permissions might help.
Again, I understand that this would limit me to scanning public repos, but that would be fine.
Using an alternate auth provider won't even prevent you from scanning non-public GitHub code. There's a GitHub OAuth App just for auth (which is what you're seeing here), and a separate GitHub App that you need to install either way to give Detail access to the right repos. We can swap out the former for Google/Okta/pw if you want to avoid this warning. GitHub Apps (the half that manages repo access) have a much finer grained permissions model.
Also unfortunately the animation on the landing page makes the whole website quite slow.
I'm the founder. Previously I was at Heap for nine years. There's a company LinkedIn with the rest of the team: https://www.linkedin.com/company/detail-dev/
We're located in SF. The About Us page lists some of our angel investors at the bottom.
Regarding security in particular, there's a lot more info in our Trust Center: https://trust.detail.dev/
If anything else seems conspicuously missing, please flag. In all likelihood it's omitted without intent.
Now I spotted in the last sentence of your "about us" that "We're based in SF". Oh and only now I see on the "terms" page has "15. Contact information qqbot, Inc 3624 16th St San Francisco, CA 94114 Email: support@detail.dev"
Why not put that address into the footer or add an imprint section to the website? It's such a quick win to establish trust. Also if guillermo rauch is an angel investor why mention him at the last sentence of the "about us" page and not in the middle of your landing page. Why did guillermo not post a testimonial that add to the landing page? Did he not like the product? Or did he not review the product?
PS: When I search for "qqbot" on kagi a lot of chinese-language results show up. Is the company affiliated with china?
Sorry for challenging you. I wish you good luck if your claims hold it is a worthwhile effort.
Waxing philosophical a bit, I think tools like these are going to be super helpful as our collective understanding of the codebases we own decreases over time due to the proliferation of AI generated code. I'm not making a value judgement here, just pointing out that as we understand codebases less, tools that help us track down the root causes of bugs will be more important.
Please consider a pricing model that's closer to bug bounties. There's clearly a working pricing model where companies are willing to pay bounties for discovered vulnerabilities. Your tool finds vulnerabilities (among other classes of bugs). Why not a pricing model where customers agree up-front to pay per bug your model finds? There are definitely some tricky parts to that model - you need an automated way of grading/scoring the bugs you find, since critical-severity bugs will be worth more (and be more interesting to customers) compared to low-severity bugs, and some customers will surely appeal some of the automatic scores - but could you make it work? Customers could then have more control over scaling up usage of Detail (adding slowly to more repositories), including capping how many bugs of each severity they would like reports for (to limit their spend), allowing customers to slowly add more repositories and run scans more frequently to find more bugs as they get more proven value from the tool.
We should be able to handle cross-compilation. Want to try it? Ping me in any direct channel (dan@detail.dev / @danlovesproofs) and we can keep an eye on your repo.
We should be able to find something interesting in most codebases, as long as there's some plausible way to build and test the code and the codebase is big enough. (Below ~250 files the results get iffy.) We've just tested it a lot more thoroughly on app backends, because that's what we know best.
Something else, it's a self-hosted Git server similar to GitHub, GitLab, etc. We have multiple repos well clear of 1k files. Almost none of it is JavaScript or TypeScript or anything like that. None of our own code is public.
We support java, c/c++, kotlin, ruby, and swift as well. Did you have something specific in mind?
Realistically, anything paid would need to be fully self-hostable, though. There's a bunch of Java codebases that I work on that would benefit from something like this, but they're all behind two or three layers of Citrix...