{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_hotcheck","slug":"hotcheck","name":"Hotcheck","type":"webapp","url":"https://hotcheck.vercel.app","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/hotcheck","categories":["data-analysis"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"free","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_0","uri":"capability://image.visual.single.image.attractiveness.scoring.with.multi.dimensional.analysis","name":"single-image attractiveness scoring with multi-dimensional analysis","description":"Analyzes uploaded photos through an undisclosed vision model to generate a numerical 'hotness rating' by evaluating four distinct dimensions: facial attractiveness, body attractiveness, style assessment, and photo quality. The system processes each image for approximately 30 seconds server-side, returning a blended composite score without per-dimension breakdowns. Architecture appears to use a cloud-based inference pipeline (hosted on Vercel) that extracts visual features and applies a proprietary scoring function, though the underlying model identity, training data, and exact scoring methodology remain undocumented.","intents":["I want to know if my profile photo will perform well on social media before posting","I need a quick numerical assessment of how attractive I appear in a specific photo","I want to understand which visual aspects (face, body, style, quality) might affect engagement","I want to compare two photos to see which one has better viral potential"],"best_for":["social media users optimizing profile pictures or post images","dating app users A/B testing profile photos","content creators seeking quick feedback on photo selection","individuals curious about algorithmic beauty standards and bias"],"limitations":["No per-dimension score breakdown — returns only blended composite rating, making it impossible to identify which aspects (face vs. body vs. style) drove the score","30-second latency per analysis makes real-time feedback loops impractical","Scoring scale is undocumented — unclear if 0-100, 1-10, or other range","No reproducibility guarantee — same photo analyzed twice may yield different scores due to potential model stochasticity","Inherent bias risk: 'hotness rating' reflects training data biases and narrow aesthetic standards, likely disadvantaging diverse phenotypes and body types","No customization for target audience (e.g., cannot specify 'rate for LinkedIn vs. TikTok' contexts)","Virality prediction accuracy is unvalidated — no published metrics, test set performance, or baseline comparisons provided"],"requires":["Web browser with JavaScript enabled","User account (free credits required to access analysis)","Image file in supported format (format constraints undocumented)","Internet connection for server-side processing"],"input_types":["image (JPEG, PNG, or WebP — exact formats unspecified)","single photo or dual photos for comparison mode"],"output_types":["numerical score (scale undocumented)","text-based insights (mode-dependent: basic, pro, or 'no sugarcoating')"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_1","uri":"capability://image.visual.comparative.photo.ranking.for.viral.potential","name":"comparative photo ranking for viral potential","description":"Enables side-by-side analysis of two photos to determine which has higher viral potential by running both images through the attractiveness-scoring pipeline and returning a ranked comparison with mode-specific insights. The comparison mode costs 2 credits (equivalent to Pro mode pricing) and outputs a direct ranking statement ('Photo A works better') plus contextual reasoning. This capability abstracts away individual scores and presents a relative judgment, reducing cognitive load for users deciding between two options.","intents":["I have two candidate photos for my profile and need to know which one to post","I want to compare my current profile picture against a new one before switching","I need to pick the stronger image from a pair for maximum engagement potential","I want to understand which photo has better visual appeal across multiple dimensions"],"best_for":["social media users making binary photo selection decisions","dating app users optimizing profile pictures through A/B testing","content creators with limited time who need quick comparative feedback"],"limitations":["Limited to exactly 2 photos per comparison — cannot rank 3+ images in a single operation","Comparison logic is opaque — unclear whether ranking is based on absolute score difference or weighted dimension analysis","No explanation of *why* one photo ranks higher (e.g., 'Photo A has better lighting' vs. 'Photo A has more attractive facial features')","60-second total latency (30 seconds per image) makes iterative photo refinement slow","Same bias risks as single-image scoring — comparison reinforces narrow aesthetic standards","No historical comparison tracking — cannot see how a photo's ranking changes over time or against different comparison partners"],"requires":["2 credits (one-time purchase or free tier allocation)","Two image files in supported format","User account with sufficient credit balance"],"input_types":["image pair (two JPEG, PNG, or WebP files)"],"output_types":["ranked comparison statement (e.g., 'Photo A works better')","text-based reasoning (mode-dependent insights)"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.mode.based.insight.generation.with.tone.variation","name":"mode-based insight generation with tone variation","description":"Generates text-based insights about photo attractiveness in three configurable modes: standard 'Quick Score' (basic summary), 'Pro Mode' (additional exclusive insights), and 'No Sugarcoating' (harsher, more critical tone). Each mode has different credit costs (1, 2, and 2 credits respectively) and output verbosity. The system appears to use conditional prompt engineering or separate model fine-tuning to vary tone and depth, allowing users to choose between encouraging feedback and blunt critique. A bundle mode combines Pro + No Sugarcoating for 3 credits, offering both detailed and harsh perspectives.","intents":["I want honest, critical feedback on my photo without sugar-coating","I want detailed insights beyond just a number to understand what works","I want encouraging feedback that highlights strengths","I want both detailed analysis and harsh critique to make an informed decision"],"best_for":["users seeking constructive criticism and honest assessment","content creators wanting detailed actionable feedback","individuals who prefer blunt feedback over encouragement","power users wanting comprehensive multi-perspective analysis"],"limitations":["Insight quality and depth are undocumented — no examples provided of what 'several EXTRA & EXCLUSIVE deep insights' actually contain","Tone variation may be superficial (simple prefix/suffix changes) rather than substantive analytical differences","'No Sugarcoating' mode risks reinforcing negative self-perception without constructive guidance on improvement","No ability to customize tone beyond three preset options","Insights are generated without explainability — no feature attribution showing which visual elements drove specific comments","Credit cost for Pro mode (2 credits) is 2x the basic mode, creating friction for users wanting detailed feedback","Bundle pricing (3 credits for Pro + No Sugarcoating) saves only 1 credit vs. purchasing separately, minimal incentive"],"requires":["1-3 credits depending on mode selection","User account with sufficient credit balance","Single or dual image upload"],"input_types":["image (JPEG, PNG, or WebP)","mode selection (Quick Score, Pro, No Sugarcoating, or bundle)"],"output_types":["text-based insights (length and tone vary by mode)","numerical score (included in all modes)"],"categories":["text-generation-language","image-visual"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_3","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.credit.based.rate.limiting.and.usage.metering","name":"credit-based rate limiting and usage metering","description":"Implements a proprietary credit system to control access and monetize analysis operations. Users receive a limited free credit allocation (quantity undocumented) and can purchase additional credits in three tiers: Starter (5 credits for $12.99), Pro (12 credits for $24.99), and Max (25 credits for $34.99). Each analysis mode consumes 1-3 credits: Quick Score (1), Pro Mode (2), No Sugarcoating (2), or bundle (3). The system tracks per-user credit balance and enforces hard paywall when credits are exhausted. Purchases are one-time (no subscription), and credits do not expire (persistence model undocumented).","intents":["I want to try the tool for free before committing to paid analysis","I need to budget my spending on photo analysis across multiple images","I want to purchase credits once and use them over time without recurring charges","I want to understand the cost per analysis before making a purchase decision"],"best_for":["casual users wanting to test the tool with minimal commitment","budget-conscious creators who prefer one-time purchases over subscriptions","users with predictable, bounded analysis needs (e.g., 'I'll analyze 10 photos this month')"],"limitations":["Free tier quantity is undocumented — unclear how many free analyses users receive before paywall","No subscription option — users must make discrete purchases, creating friction for ongoing use","Credit pricing is opaque — cost per analysis ranges from $1.40–$6.50 depending on mode and tier, with no clear value justification","No bulk discount for high-volume users — Max tier (25 credits for $34.99) costs $1.40 per basic analysis, but no tier beyond $34.99","No credit rollover or expiration policy documented — unclear if unused credits persist indefinitely or expire","No refund or credit adjustment mechanism mentioned — users cannot recover credits from accidental purchases or failed analyses","Rate limiting thresholds are undocumented — no mention of per-user request limits, burst capacity, or quota resets","Credit cost for Pro/No Sugarcoating modes (2 credits each) creates incentive to use cheaper Quick Score, potentially reducing insight quality","No API access — credits can only be spent via web UI, preventing programmatic batch analysis"],"requires":["User account (free tier requires sign-in)","Stripe payment method for paid purchases","Credit balance >= cost of selected analysis mode"],"input_types":["credit purchase decision (tier selection)","analysis mode selection (determines credit cost)"],"output_types":["credit balance update","purchase confirmation (for paid tiers)","access grant/denial to analysis based on credit availability"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_4","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.undocumented.free.tier.allocation.and.trial.access","name":"undocumented free tier allocation and trial access","description":"Provides new users with a limited free credit allocation to test the core attractiveness-scoring capability before requiring payment. The exact quantity of free credits is not disclosed in available documentation, nor are the conditions for credit replenishment, expiration, or reset. Users must create an account to access free credits, establishing a sign-in barrier that enables tracking and potential future upselling. The free tier appears designed as a conversion funnel: users experience the tool's core value proposition (single-image scoring) at no cost, then encounter a paywall when attempting higher-value modes (Pro, No Sugarcoating) or exhausting their allocation.","intents":["I want to try the tool without paying to see if it's useful","I want to test the accuracy of the attractiveness scoring before committing money","I want to analyze one or two photos for free before deciding to purchase credits"],"best_for":["new users evaluating the tool's value proposition","casual users with minimal analysis needs (1-2 photos)","skeptical users wanting proof of concept before payment"],"limitations":["Free credit quantity is undocumented — users cannot plan usage without knowing allocation","No public information on credit replenishment — unclear if free credits reset daily, monthly, or never","Free tier likely limited to Quick Score mode (1 credit) — Pro and No Sugarcoating modes probably require paid credits","Sign-in requirement creates friction and enables tracking — users must provide email/account credentials to access free tier","No trial period for paid modes — users cannot test Pro or No Sugarcoating insights before purchasing","Free tier may be intentionally limited to drive conversion — allocation may be too small to provide meaningful value","No documented path to earn additional free credits (e.g., referral bonuses, social sharing) — only purchase or wait for reset"],"requires":["User account creation (email or social login)","Free credit allocation (quantity unknown)"],"input_types":["account creation credentials","single image upload"],"output_types":["account confirmation","access to Quick Score analysis (assumed)"],"categories":["automation-workflow","tool-use-integration"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_5","uri":"capability://image.visual.server.side.image.processing.with.30.second.latency","name":"server-side image processing with 30-second latency","description":"Processes uploaded images on Vercel-hosted backend infrastructure, extracting visual features (face, body, style, quality) and computing attractiveness scores via an undisclosed vision model. The analysis pipeline introduces approximately 30 seconds of latency per image, suggesting either complex feature extraction, model inference, or both. No client-side processing is mentioned, indicating all computation occurs server-side, which centralizes model access but introduces network round-trip delays. The architecture does not support batch processing or concurrent multi-image analysis — each image requires a separate 30-second request.","intents":["I want to analyze my photo without installing software or running local models","I want the analysis to be secure and not stored locally on my device","I want to use the tool from any device with a web browser"],"best_for":["users without technical expertise or GPU hardware","users prioritizing convenience over latency","users in regions with reliable internet connectivity"],"limitations":["30-second latency per image makes real-time feedback loops impractical","No batch processing — analyzing 10 photos requires 10 sequential 30-second requests (5+ minutes total)","Network dependency — analysis fails or degrades if internet connection is unstable","Server-side processing means images are transmitted to Vercel infrastructure — privacy risk if data retention policy is unclear","No local model option — users cannot run analysis offline or on private infrastructure","Latency is fixed regardless of image complexity — simple headshots take same 30 seconds as complex group photos","No progress indication or cancellation mechanism mentioned — users cannot abort slow requests","Vercel infrastructure dependency — service unavailability or rate limiting by Vercel affects all users"],"requires":["Internet connection with sufficient bandwidth for image upload","Web browser with JavaScript and file upload support","Vercel service availability"],"input_types":["image file (JPEG, PNG, or WebP — exact formats unspecified)","file size constraints unknown"],"output_types":["numerical score","text-based insights"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_6","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.opaque.virality.prediction.without.validation.metrics","name":"opaque virality prediction without validation metrics","description":"Claims to predict social media virality based on facial attractiveness, body attractiveness, style, and photo quality, but provides no published validation metrics, test set performance, baseline comparisons, or correlation analysis with actual social engagement data. The product description asserts virality prediction capability, yet the architectural analysis reveals no evidence of training on real social media performance data or validation against ground truth engagement metrics. The scoring function appears to be a proprietary blend of these four dimensions, but the weighting, feature extraction, and prediction methodology are entirely undocumented.","intents":["I want to know if my photo will go viral before posting","I want to predict which of my photos has the highest engagement potential","I want to understand what factors drive social media virality"],"best_for":["users seeking a quick heuristic for photo selection (not actual virality prediction)","users curious about algorithmic beauty standards and bias","users wanting a gamified engagement metric (even if not predictive)"],"limitations":["No published validation metrics — unclear if model accuracy is 50%, 70%, or 90%","No correlation analysis with actual social engagement — tool may have zero predictive power for real virality","Attractiveness is a minor factor in actual virality — caption, timing, hashtags, niche relevance, and platform algorithms matter far more","No ground truth training data mentioned — unclear if model was trained on viral content or just general image classification","Bias risk: model likely reflects narrow beauty standards from training data, disadvantaging diverse phenotypes","No A/B testing framework — users cannot validate predictions against actual post performance","No feedback loop — tool does not learn from user outcomes or update predictions based on actual engagement","Conflates attractiveness with virality — fundamentally flawed premise that a single aesthetic metric predicts complex social dynamics","No customization for platform or audience — same score for LinkedIn, TikTok, Instagram, and dating apps despite different virality drivers"],"requires":["Image upload","Acceptance of unvalidated prediction methodology"],"input_types":["image (JPEG, PNG, or WebP)"],"output_types":["numerical 'virality score' (scale undocumented)","text-based insights (mode-dependent)"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","image-visual"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_7","uri":"capability://safety.moderation.undocumented.data.retention.and.privacy.model","name":"undocumented data retention and privacy model","description":"Uploads images to Vercel-hosted infrastructure for server-side processing, but provides no documented data retention policy, deletion mechanism, or privacy guarantees beyond a vague 'Private & secure' claim. The system does not specify whether uploaded photos are stored permanently, cached for reanalysis, deleted immediately after processing, or retained for model training. No mention of GDPR compliance, data export capabilities, or user deletion rights. The privacy model is entirely opaque, creating significant risk for users uploading personal photos (especially sensitive profile pictures or dating app images).","intents":["I want to know if my uploaded photos are stored or deleted after analysis","I want to understand how my data is used and protected","I want to delete my photos from the service after analysis"],"best_for":["users with low privacy sensitivity","users in jurisdictions without strict data protection laws","users willing to accept opaque data practices for convenience"],"limitations":["No data retention policy documented — unclear if photos are deleted immediately, cached, or stored permanently","No deletion mechanism mentioned — users cannot request photo removal after upload","No privacy policy or terms of service provided in available documentation","No GDPR, CCPA, or other data protection compliance mentioned","No data export capability — users cannot retrieve or backup their analysis history","Potential use for model training — no statement on whether uploaded images are used to improve the attractiveness-scoring model","Vercel infrastructure dependency — data is subject to Vercel's privacy practices and potential third-party access","No encryption or anonymization mentioned — images may be stored with identifying metadata","High risk for sensitive content — dating app photos, profile pictures, or other personal images could be exposed if data is breached or misused","No audit trail — users cannot see who accessed their data or when"],"requires":["Trust in Vercel and Hotcheck's data handling practices","Acceptance of undocumented data retention"],"input_types":["image file (uploaded to Vercel backend)"],"output_types":["analysis results (data retention unknown)"],"categories":["safety-moderation","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_8","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.no.api.or.programmatic.access.for.batch.analysis","name":"no api or programmatic access for batch analysis","description":"Restricts all analysis operations to web UI interactions — no REST API, GraphQL endpoint, or SDK is mentioned or available. Users cannot programmatically upload images, retrieve results, or integrate Hotcheck into automated workflows. This architectural choice prevents batch processing, integration with photo management tools, or CI/CD pipelines. Each analysis requires manual web UI interaction, making the tool unsuitable for creators managing large photo libraries or teams needing scalable analysis infrastructure.","intents":["I want to analyze 100 photos at once without clicking 100 times","I want to integrate photo analysis into my content management workflow","I want to automate photo selection for my social media posting pipeline"],"best_for":["casual users analyzing 1-5 photos at a time","users comfortable with manual web UI interaction"],"limitations":["No API access — cannot programmatically submit images or retrieve results","No batch processing — each image requires separate manual upload and 30-second wait","No SDK or client library — cannot integrate into Python, JavaScript, or other development workflows","No webhook support — cannot receive notifications when analysis completes","No integration with photo management tools (Google Photos, Lightroom, Dropbox) — must manually download and upload","No CI/CD integration — cannot automate photo analysis as part of content publishing pipeline","No data export API — cannot retrieve analysis history or results in bulk","Scaling is impossible — analyzing 1,000 photos would require 500+ minutes of manual interaction","No rate limiting documentation — unclear if API would be available at higher pricing tiers"],"requires":["Manual web UI interaction for each analysis","No programmatic access available"],"input_types":["web UI file upload only"],"output_types":["web UI display only (no API response)"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_hotcheck__cap_9","uri":"capability://image.visual.no.explainability.or.feature.attribution.in.scoring","name":"no explainability or feature attribution in scoring","description":"Returns a single blended 'hotness rating' without breaking down which visual dimensions (face, body, style, photo quality) contributed to the score. The system claims to evaluate four distinct dimensions but provides no per-dimension scores, feature importance weights, or visual explanations (e.g., 'face attractiveness: 7/10, body attractiveness: 6/10'). Users receive only a composite number and mode-dependent text insights, with no ability to understand which aspects drove the rating or how to improve specific dimensions. This lack of explainability makes the tool a black-box engagement vanity metric rather than actionable feedback.","intents":["I want to know which specific aspects of my photo are attractive or unattractive","I want to understand why my photo scored a 6 instead of an 8","I want actionable feedback on how to improve my appearance or photo quality"],"best_for":["users seeking only a quick numerical judgment (not detailed feedback)","users comfortable with opaque scoring mechanisms"],"limitations":["No per-dimension scores — cannot see face vs. body vs. style vs. quality breakdown","No feature importance weights — unclear which dimensions matter most for virality","No visual explanations — no highlighting of attractive/unattractive regions","No improvement guidance — text insights may mention issues but don't explain how to fix them","Black-box scoring — users cannot understand or challenge the rating","No calibration information — unclear if a score of 7 is 'good' or 'average' without context","No comparative feedback — cannot see how specific dimensions compare to population averages","Limits actionability — users cannot prioritize improvements (e.g., 'focus on lighting' vs. 'focus on styling')","Reinforces bias without transparency — users cannot identify or challenge unfair aesthetic judgments"],"requires":["Acceptance of opaque scoring without explanation"],"input_types":["image upload"],"output_types":["numerical score (no breakdown)","text insights (no feature attribution)"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":25,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Web browser with JavaScript enabled","User account (free credits required to access analysis)","Image file in supported format (format constraints undocumented)","Internet connection for server-side processing","2 credits (one-time purchase or free tier allocation)","Two image files in supported format","User account with sufficient credit balance","1-3 credits depending on mode selection","Single or dual image upload","User account (free tier requires sign-in)"],"failure_modes":["No per-dimension score breakdown — returns only blended composite rating, making it impossible to identify which aspects (face vs. body vs. style) drove the score","30-second latency per analysis makes real-time feedback loops impractical","Scoring scale is undocumented — unclear if 0-100, 1-10, or other range","No reproducibility guarantee — same photo analyzed twice may yield different scores due to potential model stochasticity","Inherent bias risk: 'hotness rating' reflects training data biases and narrow aesthetic standards, likely disadvantaging diverse phenotypes and body types","No customization for target audience (e.g., cannot specify 'rate for LinkedIn vs. TikTok' contexts)","Virality prediction accuracy is unvalidated — no published metrics, test set performance, or baseline comparisons provided","Limited to exactly 2 photos per comparison — cannot rank 3+ images in a single operation","Comparison logic is opaque — unclear whether ranking is based on absolute score difference or weighted dimension analysis","No explanation of *why* one photo ranks higher (e.g., 'Photo A has better lighting' vs. 'Photo A has more attractive facial features')","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.05,"quality":0.38,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:30.893Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.564Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=hotcheck","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=hotcheck"}},"signature":"sFk46GdIXjZx0Hw65wu0cI/fZuVN8lNHRR9dpUyJsAQ5OYon42uoDT+QJReZqOQ0ZgfskIeI6N0hZhmupatRDA==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T00:10:28.303Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/hotcheck","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/hotcheck","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=hotcheck","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}