Human review queue for AI-written drafts
Human review queue for AI-written drafts is a SaaS idea for small support, marketing and operations teams that draft with AI, priced to test at $15 per reviewer a month. AI drafts are fast but sometimes wrong. With it, teams that let AI draft replies, posts or reports send each draft to a person who edits, approves and leaves an audit trail.
. A starting point we wrote, not market research: run the 7-day test before you build.
What problem does it solve?
AI drafts are fast but sometimes wrong. Teams paste them into chats for a check, lose track of what was approved, and can’t show who signed off when a mistake goes out.
Why now: Teams draft with AI every day, and anything a customer reads still needs a person to check it.
What do they use today?
Most teams forward drafts by email or leave them in a shared document for a colleague to read when they can. Approval is a quick reply, and the only record is what is left in the inbox.
How does it work?
A support tool sends each AI-written reply to the queue by API, and a marketing draft can arrive by email. A rule decides whether it needs a review, and if so a lead assigns it to a person. The reviewer edits the text and approves it, the log records who signed off and when, and the approved draft goes back by webhook.
What goes in the first version?
- Drafts arrive by API or by email
- A queue to assign, edit and approve drafts
- Rules for which drafts need a review
- A log of who approved what, and when
- Approved drafts sent back by webhook
Who pays, and how much?
- Who pays
- Small support, marketing and operations teams that draft with AI
- Price to test
- $15 per reviewer a month
Pricing per reviewer follows the people who actually check drafts, so a team pays only for the people who approve. That suits teams where AI writes a lot and only a few people sign it off.
How to test it in 7 days
- 1Ask five support or marketing leads how they check AI drafts today.
- 2Read r/CustomerSuccess for complaints about AI mistakes reaching customers.
- 3Route one team’s drafts through a shared doc for a week and time the reviews.
Where to find the first customers
- Support and marketing communities on Slack and LinkedIn
- r/CustomerSuccess
- Agencies that write content for clients
What are the risks?
- AI writing tools are adding review steps of their own.
- Integrations decide adoption, so start with one tool teams already use.
How to build it on shipanysaas
5 of the parts it needs are already in the kit. Get the kit, open it in Claude Code, Codex or Cursor, and paste the starting prompt.
- Already in the kit
- Teams and roles
- Billing
- Admin panel
- Emails
- In-app notifications
- You build
- Draft intake by API and email
- Review queue with edits and approvals
- Audit log and webhooks
See the starting prompt
You are in a fresh copy of the shipanysaas starter kit, a pnpm and Turborepo monorepo: the Next.js web app is in apps/web and the Supabase database, with its migrations, in apps/web/supabase. Help me build the first version of Human review queue for AI-written drafts. Read AGENTS.md first, then the AGENTS.md in every folder you work in: the kit's rules there win over your defaults. When a skill in .agents/skills (also in .claude/skills and .cursor/skills) matches a task, use it. ## The product - What it does: Teams that let AI draft replies, posts or reports send each draft to a person who edits, approves and leaves an audit trail. - Who pays: Small support, marketing and operations teams that draft with AI - Their problem: AI drafts are fast but sometimes wrong. Teams paste them into chats for a check, lose track of what was approved, and can’t show who signed off when a mistake goes out. - Price to test: $15 per reviewer a month (a plan in apps/web/config/billing.config.ts) ## Build only this first version 1. Drafts arrive by API or by email 2. A queue to assign, edit and approve drafts 3. Rules for which drafts need a review 4. A log of who approved what, and when 5. Approved drafts sent back by webhook ## Already in the kit: reuse it, never rebuild it - Teams and roles: team accounts with members, roles and invitations - Billing: Stripe or Lemon Squeezy subscriptions, per seat or usage-based, and one-off payments - Admin panel: a super-admin panel that needs two-step sign-in - Emails: transactional email through Resend or Nodemailer - In-app notifications: a notifications bell in the web app ## New code it needs - Draft intake by API and email - Review queue with edits and approvals - Audit log and webhooks ## How to work 1. Plan first: list the database tables (with row-level security, so each team only sees its own rows), the pages and the server actions for the first feature. Then stop and wait for my OK. 2. Build one feature at a time with the kit's own UI and form components, with a migration for every schema change and user-facing text in the translation files. 3. After each feature, run the verification steps in AGENTS.md, fix what they find, and tell me what you built and what comes next. ## Rules - Ask me before you add a dependency, delete a file, or change sign-in, billing or the admin panel. - Leave the parts of the kit this product doesn't use as they are. Done when every first-version feature works for a signed-in team and the AGENTS.md checks pass.
Guides for the parts it uses
Want ideas for your own skills?
The free generator writes three while you watch, each with a plan and a starting prompt. Or paste this idea into it for two sharper versions.
More ideas: Developer and AI
Customer interview notes with pain-point tagging
Founders keep every customer call in one place, tag the pains, and see which problems come up most.
Safe AI-agent access to internal tools
Small software teams give AI agents read access to internal data through one gateway, with keys they can revoke and a log of every call.
Security questionnaire answers for small SaaS teams
Founders keep approved security answers in one library, and AI drafts each new questionnaire from them for a person to check.