Fail here first.
Adversarial AI that attacks your plan before reality does. A Panel of hostile specialists finds the failure modes you're avoiding — and names the one you must fix first.
Everyone around you wants your plan to succeed. That's the problem.
Your friends encourage. Your advisors hedge. Your chatbot congratulates you on a great question. Reality does none of those things — it just charges you for every flaw you didn't find. BadMars is the place to meet those flaws early, while they're still cheap.
Thirteen specialists. Each one paid to find what the others missed.
The Hostile Investor
Attacks your unit economics and your moat — with your own numbers.
The Skeptical Customer
Reads your value claim and asks why anyone would switch.
The Aggressive Competitor
Estimates how fast your idea can be cloned. Usually: a weekend.
The CFO
Finds the number your projection quietly depends on.
The Regulator
Names the compliance exposure you filed under "later."
The Taxman
Follows your cross-border setup to its expensive conclusion.
The Operator
Counts the humans your plan assumes and the hours it forgot.
The Journalist
Writes tomorrow's headline about today's shortcut.
Eight seats for plans that need to survive a market: business plans, launches, pivots, pricing.
For career moves and transitions — The Hiring Manager, The Recruiter, The Accountant and colleagues read your move the way the other side will.
New specialists are drafted, briefed, and cross-examined before they ever take a seat — every briefing versioned, every release on the record. Colony settlers meet them first.
Staffing is triage-assigned per Mission — your plan decides who shows up.
Not opinions. A procedure.
Your plan is treated as evidence
Every finding must anchor to a verbatim quote from your own document. If the Panel can't point at it, it can't file it.
Findings, ranked hardest first
Severity times probability, coded against a failure taxonomy built from real plans — not vibes, not a checklist from a blog.
The Panel attacks its own findings
A second pass tries to kill every finding. What survives is what matters. Weak findings don't make the report.
Computed by code. Never by mood.
The model files the findings. The formula sets the number:
We ran BadMars on our own business plan.
This is one person selling a prompt pattern as a moat, priced against a free substitute that the plan's own evidence documents.
It hurt. It was also the most useful document we'd ever read about ourselves. The Frog said one person was the whole company — so we ate it: BadMars is a small team now, with specialists hired where the report named the gaps. That's the product, tested on its maker first.
EVERY REPORT: RANKED FINDINGS · VERBATIM ANCHORS · A HANDLE PER FINDING · THE FROG · THE SCORE
One finding is the Frog. Eat it, and come back.
Old productivity advice, usually pinned on Mark Twain: if you have to eat a frog, eat it first thing in the morning — nothing worse will happen to you all day. Ours is stricter. Every report names exactly one Frog: the hardest problem, the one the rest of your plan quietly depends on, the one you've been avoiding. Fix it, return with evidence — not promises — and the Panel re-convenes to move your score.
The green in that panel is the only green on this entire page. Green is earned.
The ladder is the trial.
For individuals: your plan, attacked. For teams — agencies, studios, strategy rooms — every plan on the table, with shared seats, client separation, and comparison views on Fleet and Armada.
One Mission a month. One specialist, redacted bench, three Debrief exchanges. Enough to hurt.
Teams start at Fleet €99/mo · 20 missions · 3 seats — the full ladder
Before you ask.
The questions every founder asks before pasting their plan into a website run by a hostile Panel. Fair questions. Straight answers.
What happens to my plan after I send it?
It gets attacked, and that's all. Your plan is never training data — not for us, not for our model providers, who are contractually barred from it. Your report stays private unless you share it — and a shared link shows the Score, the Verdict, and two findings, never the plan itself. Infrastructure is EU-hosted, GDPR applies in full, and you can request deletion of your payloads, reports, and account at any time.
How is this different from asking a chatbot?
A general chatbot is built to be helpful, so it finds polite problems and congratulates you for asking. The Panel runs versioned specialist briefings against a coded failure taxonomy, must anchor every claim to your own words, cross-examines its own findings, and computes the score with a formula — not a mood.
What should I send?
Anything that has to survive contact with reality: a business plan, a launch, a pivot, a pricing change, a career move. Paste the text — a Flyby reads the essentials, a Landing digests up to roughly eighty pages.
Can AI criticism actually be trusted?
Trust the procedure, not the vibes. Every finding points at a verbatim quote from your document, survives a cross-examination pass, and arrives with a handle — the concrete next move. Where a finding is weak, it dies before you see it. And we say plainly what we are: an AI system, disclosed on every surface.
What if I disagree with a finding?
Good — argue. Every report opens a Debrief: press a finding, bring your counter-evidence, and the Panel defends its position, re-ranks hypothetically, and pressure-tests your reasoning. The filed report never changes to make you feel better — but a finding you can defeat in Debrief teaches you as much as one you can't.
What if the report teaches me nothing?
First Landing carries a 48-hour full-refund guarantee. If the Panel taught you nothing, take the money back — we'll note the plan was flawless and update your score to 100. (We won't.)
Hostile to the plan · loyal to the person
Reality is already reviewing your plan.
It just hasn't filed yet.
Send it to Mars first. Get the findings while they're cheap, eat the Frog, and walk into the real review already knowing the answers.