{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_pitches-ai","slug":"pitches-ai","name":"Pitches.ai","type":"product","url":"https://pitches.ai","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/pitches-ai","categories":["text-writing"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"paid","free":false,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_0","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.deck.content.analysis.and.extraction","name":"deck-content-analysis-and-extraction","description":"Analyzes uploaded pitch deck files (PDF, PowerPoint, Google Slides) to extract and parse textual content, visual hierarchy, and structural metadata from each slide. Uses document parsing and OCR techniques to identify slide titles, body text, speaker notes, and visual elements, building an internal representation of deck structure that enables downstream analysis and recommendations.","intents":["I need to understand what's actually in my pitch deck programmatically so I can get AI feedback on it","I want to extract all text and structure from my deck without manually copying it","I need to identify which slides are weak or missing key information"],"best_for":["Founders with existing decks in standard formats (PDF, PPTX, Google Slides)","Teams needing automated deck audits without manual review"],"limitations":["OCR accuracy degrades on slides with complex layouts, handwritten text, or non-standard fonts","Cannot extract embedded videos, animations, or speaker notes from all file formats reliably","Requires decks to be in digital format — scanned images or printed decks need conversion first","May struggle with non-English text or mixed-language decks"],"requires":["Pitch deck file in PDF, PowerPoint (.pptx), or Google Slides format","File size typically under 50MB for reliable processing","Internet connection for cloud-based parsing"],"input_types":["PDF","PowerPoint (.pptx)","Google Slides (via URL or export)","Keynote (if converted to PDF/PPTX)"],"output_types":["structured JSON representation of deck (slides, text, metadata)","extracted text corpus for analysis","visual layout metadata"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","document-parsing"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_1","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.investor.pattern.matching.and.benchmarking","name":"investor-pattern-matching-and-benchmarking","description":"Compares extracted deck content against a learned model of successful fundraising pitches, likely trained on patterns from thousands of funded decks or investor feedback datasets. Identifies structural gaps, messaging weaknesses, and content misalignments by matching against templates or heuristics for what investors expect (e.g., problem-solution clarity, market size articulation, team credibility signals). Returns scored assessments of how well each section aligns with investor expectations.","intents":["I want to know how my pitch compares to what investors typically see in successful decks","I need to identify which sections of my deck are weakest relative to investor expectations","I want data-driven feedback on whether my problem statement is compelling enough"],"best_for":["Early-stage founders (pre-seed to Series A) with decks that need investor-readiness assessment","Founders without access to pitch coaches or investor mentors","Teams iterating on pitch messaging before investor meetings"],"limitations":["Benchmarking accuracy depends entirely on quality and recency of training data — if trained on outdated successful decks, recommendations may not reflect current investor priorities","Cannot account for industry-specific investor expectations (e.g., biotech vs. SaaS investors have different criteria)","Pattern matching may penalize genuinely innovative or contrarian pitches that break conventional templates","No feedback on delivery, tone, or presenter credibility — only deck content","Unknown whether training data includes failed pitches for contrast, limiting ability to identify truly problematic patterns"],"requires":["Successfully extracted deck content from prior capability","Implicit assumption: training data on successful fundraising decks (proprietary or licensed)"],"input_types":["structured deck representation (from deck-content-analysis-and-extraction)","slide text and metadata"],"output_types":["scored assessments per slide (0-100 alignment score)","identified gaps vs. investor expectations","structured feedback on messaging clarity, market articulation, team positioning"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_10","uri":"capability://automation.workflow.iterative.feedback.and.version.tracking","name":"iterative-feedback-and-version-tracking","description":"Maintains version history of pitch deck improvements, allowing founders to track changes over time and compare versions. Enables iterative refinement by storing feedback, suggested changes, and founder edits. May provide before/after comparisons showing how suggestions improved specific metrics (e.g., clarity scores, investor alignment). Supports collaborative feedback loops where founders can accept/reject suggestions and re-analyze updated decks.","intents":["I want to track how my pitch has improved over multiple iterations","I need to compare my original deck against the improved version to see what changed","I want to accept some AI suggestions and reject others, then get updated feedback"],"best_for":["Founders iterating on pitch decks over weeks/months before investor meetings","Teams wanting to track progress and measure improvement","Founders wanting to understand which changes had the biggest impact"],"limitations":["Version tracking requires persistent storage and state management — no indication if Pitches.ai maintains this or if it's lost between sessions","Before/after comparison metrics are based on AI assessment, not actual investor feedback — improvement may not translate to real investor interest","No A/B testing or multivariate feedback — founder must manually evaluate which suggestions to adopt","Collaborative feedback loops require manual founder action; no automated suggestion acceptance/rejection","No integration with actual pitch deck tools (PowerPoint, Google Slides) — requires manual export/import"],"requires":["Persistent user account and session management","Ability to upload multiple versions of the same deck","Optional: integration with pitch deck tools for direct editing"],"input_types":["multiple versions of pitch deck (uploaded sequentially)","founder feedback on suggestions (accept/reject)","optional: notes on changes made"],"output_types":["version history with timestamps","before/after comparison (text, structure, metrics)","change tracking (which suggestions were adopted)","improvement metrics over time"],"categories":["automation-workflow","memory-knowledge"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_11","uri":"capability://tool.use.integration.export.and.integration.with.pitch.tools","name":"export-and-integration-with-pitch-tools","description":"Enables founders to export feedback and suggestions in formats compatible with PowerPoint, Google Slides, or Keynote, or provides direct integration for applying changes. May support exporting annotated PDFs with feedback, generating slide-by-slide improvement checklists, or creating a separate feedback document. Reduces friction between analysis and implementation by enabling direct editing or easy reference during manual updates.","intents":["I want to export the feedback so I can apply changes directly in PowerPoint","I need a checklist of improvements I should make to each slide","I want an annotated PDF showing exactly where to make changes"],"best_for":["Founders who want to implement feedback directly in their existing deck tools","Teams wanting a structured checklist for improvement implementation","Founders needing to share feedback with designers or collaborators"],"limitations":["Export formats may not preserve all feedback context — founders may lose nuance when implementing changes","No direct editing integration (likely) — founders must manually apply changes, introducing friction and potential for misinterpretation","Feedback export is static — if deck is updated, feedback may become outdated","No two-way sync with pitch deck tools — changes made in PowerPoint/Slides don't automatically update Pitches.ai analysis","Checklists may be overwhelming if there are many suggestions; no prioritization of high-impact changes"],"requires":["Successfully analyzed deck with feedback generated","Export capability (PDF, DOCX, or integration API)","Optional: direct integration with PowerPoint/Google Slides APIs"],"input_types":["feedback and suggestions from prior analysis","optional: export format preference (PDF, DOCX, checklist)"],"output_types":["annotated PDF with feedback and suggestions","slide-by-slide improvement checklist","feedback document (DOCX or similar)","optional: direct edits in PowerPoint/Google Slides"],"categories":["tool-use-integration","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_2","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.ai.powered.content.rewriting.and.optimization","name":"ai-powered-content-rewriting-and-optimization","description":"Generates alternative phrasings, messaging improvements, and content suggestions for weak or unclear sections identified by pattern matching. Uses LLM-based text generation (likely GPT-4 or similar) to produce multiple rewrite options for headlines, problem statements, value propositions, and call-to-action language. Maintains founder voice while optimizing for investor comprehension and persuasiveness based on learned patterns of successful pitches.","intents":["I want AI to suggest better ways to phrase my problem statement so investors immediately understand the pain","I need multiple options for my value proposition headline and want to pick the strongest one","I want to strengthen my market opportunity section with more compelling language"],"best_for":["Founders who are strong on strategy but weak on messaging or copywriting","Teams iterating quickly on pitch messaging before investor meetings","Non-native English speakers who want to improve clarity and persuasiveness"],"limitations":["Generated rewrites may sound generic or corporate if not carefully curated by founder — LLM-generated text can lack authentic founder voice","No guarantee that AI suggestions actually increase investor interest — optimization is based on pattern matching, not proven causation","Requires founder judgment to evaluate and select suggestions; poor selection can make pitch worse","May over-optimize for pattern matching at expense of differentiation or contrarian positioning","No A/B testing or multivariate feedback — founder must manually evaluate which suggestions to adopt"],"requires":["LLM API access (OpenAI, Anthropic, or proprietary model)","Successfully identified weak sections from prior pattern-matching capability","Founder willingness to review and curate suggestions"],"input_types":["identified weak content sections (text + context)","slide type/purpose (e.g., 'problem statement', 'market opportunity')","optional: founder voice/tone guidelines"],"output_types":["multiple rewrite options per section (typically 3-5 alternatives)","scored suggestions (based on pattern alignment)","inline editing suggestions with rationale"],"categories":["text-generation-language","automation-workflow"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.structural.deck.gap.identification","name":"structural-deck-gap-identification","description":"Analyzes deck structure against a template or checklist of essential pitch deck sections (e.g., problem, solution, market size, business model, team, financials, ask). Identifies missing slides, out-of-order sections, or underexplored topics that investors typically expect. Uses rule-based logic and/or learned patterns to flag structural weaknesses and recommend additions or reorganization.","intents":["I want to know if my deck is missing critical sections that investors expect to see","I need to understand if my slides are in the right order for investor persuasion","I want to identify which topics I've glossed over and should expand"],"best_for":["First-time founders building their first pitch deck","Founders with existing decks that feel incomplete but unsure what's missing","Teams wanting a structured checklist for pitch deck completeness"],"limitations":["Template-based approach assumes one-size-fits-all deck structure; some industries (e.g., hardware, biotech) have different investor expectations","Cannot account for founder's deliberate choices to omit sections (e.g., intentionally vague on financials pre-NDA)","Slide order recommendations may not account for specific investor audience or pitch context","No feedback on depth or quality of coverage — only presence/absence of sections","May flag 'missing' sections that are actually covered implicitly across multiple slides"],"requires":["Successfully extracted deck structure from prior capability","Implicit template or checklist of expected pitch deck sections (proprietary or industry-standard)"],"input_types":["structured deck representation (slide titles, content summaries)","optional: industry/stage context (e.g., 'Series A SaaS')"],"output_types":["gap analysis report (missing sections, underexplored topics)","recommended slide additions with suggested content","optional: suggested slide reordering"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_4","uri":"capability://image.visual.visual.design.and.layout.feedback","name":"visual-design-and-layout-feedback","description":"Analyzes visual properties of slides (color schemes, typography, image usage, whitespace, visual hierarchy) to provide design feedback without requiring manual redesign. May use computer vision to assess visual balance, readability, and alignment with modern pitch deck aesthetics. Generates recommendations for improving visual clarity and professional appearance, potentially with before/after examples or design principle explanations.","intents":["I want feedback on whether my deck looks professional and investor-ready visually","I need to know if my slides are readable and visually balanced","I want design improvement suggestions without hiring a designer"],"best_for":["Founders with functional decks that need visual polish","Teams without design budget but needing professional appearance","Founders wanting quick visual assessment before investor meetings"],"limitations":["Cannot perform actual design changes — only provides feedback and recommendations","Visual feedback quality depends on computer vision accuracy; may miss subtle design issues or misinterpret intentional design choices","Recommendations are generic design principles (contrast, whitespace, hierarchy) rather than brand-specific or industry-specific aesthetics","Cannot assess how visuals support narrative or emotional impact — only technical design properties","May penalize unique or unconventional visual styles that actually differentiate the pitch","No feedback on image quality, relevance, or whether visuals actually support the message"],"requires":["Deck files with visual content (PDF or image exports of slides)","Computer vision/image analysis capability (likely third-party API or proprietary model)"],"input_types":["slide images or PDF with visual rendering","optional: brand guidelines or design preferences"],"output_types":["visual design assessment scores (readability, balance, professionalism)","specific design recommendations (e.g., 'increase whitespace on slide 3', 'improve color contrast on text')","optional: design principle explanations"],"categories":["image-visual","data-processing-analysis"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_5","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.narrative.flow.and.persuasion.analysis","name":"narrative-flow-and-persuasion-analysis","description":"Evaluates the logical flow and persuasive arc of the pitch across slides, assessing whether the narrative builds compelling momentum from problem through solution to ask. Analyzes transitions between sections, identifies logical gaps or unsupported claims, and evaluates whether the pitch follows proven persuasion frameworks (e.g., problem-agitate-solve, hero's journey). Provides feedback on narrative coherence and emotional engagement potential.","intents":["I want to know if my pitch tells a compelling story that builds momentum","I need feedback on whether my logic flow makes sense and supports my ask","I want to identify where my pitch loses investors or makes unsupported leaps"],"best_for":["Founders with logically sound decks that may lack persuasive narrative structure","Teams wanting to improve pitch delivery and investor engagement","Founders seeking to understand psychological/emotional impact of their pitch"],"limitations":["Narrative analysis is subjective and depends on LLM's understanding of persuasion — may miss cultural or audience-specific persuasion patterns","Cannot assess delivery, tone, or presenter charisma — only written narrative structure","Feedback on 'emotional engagement' is speculative; no guarantee that AI-assessed narrative actually persuades real investors","May penalize decks with unconventional narrative structures that actually work better for specific investor audiences","No A/B testing or multivariate feedback on narrative alternatives"],"requires":["Successfully extracted and analyzed deck content from prior capabilities","LLM capable of narrative analysis and persuasion framework understanding"],"input_types":["full deck content in sequence (slide titles, text, logical flow)","optional: target investor profile or pitch context"],"output_types":["narrative flow assessment (coherence score, momentum analysis)","identified logical gaps or unsupported claims","persuasion framework alignment feedback","suggestions for improving narrative arc or transitions"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_6","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.competitive.positioning.and.differentiation.analysis","name":"competitive-positioning-and-differentiation-analysis","description":"Evaluates how clearly the pitch articulates competitive differentiation and market positioning. Analyzes whether the deck adequately explains why the solution is unique, defensible, or better than alternatives. May cross-reference against known competitors or market categories to identify positioning gaps. Provides feedback on clarity of differentiation messaging and suggestions for strengthening competitive narrative.","intents":["I want to know if my pitch clearly explains why we're different from competitors","I need feedback on whether my positioning is compelling and defensible","I want to identify if I'm underselling our unique advantages"],"best_for":["Founders in crowded markets needing to articulate clear differentiation","Teams with strong products but weak positioning messaging","Founders seeking to strengthen competitive narrative before investor meetings"],"limitations":["Competitive analysis is only as good as the AI's knowledge of market competitors — may miss emerging competitors or misunderstand market dynamics","Cannot assess actual product differentiation — only evaluates how well it's communicated in the deck","Positioning feedback may be generic if the AI lacks deep industry knowledge","May penalize 'blue ocean' strategies that intentionally avoid direct competitor comparison","No feedback on whether differentiation is actually valuable to target customers or investors"],"requires":["Successfully extracted deck content, particularly competitive/positioning sections","LLM with market knowledge or access to competitive intelligence data","Optional: explicit competitor list or market category information"],"input_types":["competitive positioning section content","solution/product description","optional: explicit competitor names or market category"],"output_types":["positioning clarity assessment","identified differentiation gaps or weak claims","suggestions for strengthening competitive narrative","optional: competitive landscape context"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_7","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.financial.projections.and.metrics.validation","name":"financial-projections-and-metrics-validation","description":"Analyzes financial sections of the pitch (revenue projections, unit economics, burn rate, runway, market sizing) for internal consistency, reasonableness, and alignment with investor expectations. Validates that numbers are internally coherent (e.g., market size supports revenue projections), identifies missing key metrics, and flags unrealistic or unsupported assumptions. Provides feedback on financial credibility and suggestions for strengthening financial narrative.","intents":["I want to know if my financial projections are realistic and internally consistent","I need feedback on whether I'm missing key metrics investors expect to see","I want to identify if my assumptions are too aggressive or unsupported"],"best_for":["Founders with financial projections that need validation and refinement","Teams wanting to ensure financial credibility before investor meetings","Founders seeking to identify gaps in financial narrative"],"limitations":["Validation is based on pattern matching against successful pitches, not actual financial modeling expertise — may miss industry-specific financial dynamics","Cannot assess whether underlying business model is actually viable — only whether numbers are internally consistent","Reasonableness checks are heuristic-based and may penalize genuinely high-growth opportunities or miss red flags in unsustainable models","No feedback on whether financial assumptions are actually achievable given market conditions or competitive dynamics","Requires explicit financial data in deck; many early-stage founders omit detailed financials"],"requires":["Financial data extracted from deck (revenue projections, metrics, assumptions)","Implicit knowledge of industry-standard financial metrics and reasonable growth rates"],"input_types":["financial projections (revenue, burn rate, runway)","key metrics (CAC, LTV, unit economics)","market sizing data","optional: business model description"],"output_types":["financial consistency assessment","identified unrealistic or unsupported assumptions","missing key metrics flagged","suggestions for strengthening financial narrative","reasonableness feedback on growth rates and projections"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_8","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.team.credibility.and.background.assessment","name":"team-credibility-and-background-assessment","description":"Analyzes how the pitch presents team credentials, experience, and credibility signals. Evaluates whether the team section adequately conveys relevant experience, domain expertise, and track record. Identifies missing credibility signals (e.g., relevant prior exits, industry experience, complementary skills) and provides feedback on how to strengthen team narrative. May flag if team presentation is weak relative to the ambitious ask.","intents":["I want to know if my team section adequately conveys our credibility and relevant experience","I need feedback on whether we're highlighting the right credentials for investor confidence","I want to identify if we're missing key credibility signals"],"best_for":["Founders with strong teams but weak team presentation in the deck","Early-stage teams wanting to maximize credibility perception","Founders seeking to identify which team credentials matter most to investors"],"limitations":["Assessment is based on written credentials only — cannot evaluate actual capability, chemistry, or execution ability","Credibility signals are pattern-matched against successful pitches, which may bias toward conventional backgrounds (e.g., Stanford, prior exits) and miss unconventional but strong credentials","Cannot assess whether team is actually capable of executing the ambitious plan — only whether credentials are well-presented","May penalize diverse or non-traditional backgrounds that investors increasingly value","No feedback on team dynamics, communication skills, or ability to work together"],"requires":["Team section content extracted from deck (names, titles, backgrounds, credentials)","Implicit knowledge of what credentials investors value for different business types"],"input_types":["team member names, titles, and backgrounds","prior experience and credentials","optional: business type/stage context"],"output_types":["team credibility assessment","identified missing or underemphasized credentials","suggestions for strengthening team narrative","feedback on credential relevance to business"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_pitches-ai__cap_9","uri":"capability://data.processing.analysis.investor.ask.clarity.and.alignment","name":"investor-ask-clarity-and-alignment","description":"Analyzes the 'ask' section of the pitch (funding amount, use of funds, equity offered, timeline) for clarity, reasonableness, and alignment with the rest of the pitch. Validates that the ask is supported by the business plan (e.g., runway aligns with burn rate, funding amount matches stated use of funds). Identifies missing information (e.g., no clarity on equity dilution) and provides feedback on how to strengthen the ask narrative.","intents":["I want to know if my funding ask is clear and well-supported by my business plan","I need feedback on whether my ask is reasonable given my stage and metrics","I want to identify if I'm missing key information about how I'll use the funds"],"best_for":["Founders finalizing their pitch before investor meetings","Teams wanting to ensure their ask is clear and defensible","Founders seeking to validate that their ask aligns with their business plan"],"limitations":["Reasonableness assessment is based on pattern matching against successful pitches, not actual market conditions or investor appetite","Cannot assess whether the funding amount is actually sufficient for the stated plan — only whether it's internally consistent","May penalize unconventional asks (e.g., smaller rounds, revenue-based financing) that don't fit standard patterns","No feedback on negotiation strategy or investor expectations for different round types","Cannot assess whether the ask is appropriate for the target investor audience"],"requires":["Ask section content extracted from deck (funding amount, use of funds, equity, timeline)","Financial projections and business plan context from prior sections"],"input_types":["funding amount requested","use of funds breakdown","equity offered (if specified)","timeline/milestones","optional: stage, metrics, burn rate context"],"output_types":["ask clarity assessment","alignment validation (ask vs. business plan)","identified missing information","reasonableness feedback on funding amount","suggestions for strengthening ask narrative"],"categories":["data-processing-analysis","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":40,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"high","permissions":["Pitch deck file in PDF, PowerPoint (.pptx), or Google Slides format","File size typically under 50MB for reliable processing","Internet connection for cloud-based parsing","Successfully extracted deck content from prior capability","Implicit assumption: training data on successful fundraising decks (proprietary or licensed)","Persistent user account and session management","Ability to upload multiple versions of the same deck","Optional: integration with pitch deck tools for direct editing","Successfully analyzed deck with feedback generated","Export capability (PDF, DOCX, or integration API)"],"failure_modes":["OCR accuracy degrades on slides with complex layouts, handwritten text, or non-standard fonts","Cannot extract embedded videos, animations, or speaker notes from all file formats reliably","Requires decks to be in digital format — scanned images or printed decks need conversion first","May struggle with non-English text or mixed-language decks","Benchmarking accuracy depends entirely on quality and recency of training data — if trained on outdated successful decks, recommendations may not reflect current investor priorities","Cannot account for industry-specific investor expectations (e.g., biotech vs. SaaS investors have different criteria)","Pattern matching may penalize genuinely innovative or contrarian pitches that break conventional templates","No feedback on delivery, tone, or presenter credibility — only deck content","Unknown whether training data includes failed pitches for contrast, limiting ability to identify truly problematic patterns","Version tracking requires persistent storage and state management — no indication if Pitches.ai maintains this or if it's lost between sessions","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.31666666666666665,"quality":0.72,"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":"2026-05-24T12:16:32.437Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.560Z","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=pitches-ai","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=pitches-ai"}},"signature":"OKZcSbOKztTSwQzfSvlyj0dMEAAlCNBooi70BW9aGk8rpjPc0P+RrCGQ9dmhX7ez5XOe+lu/D5bjihc614qzDw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T06:51:41.964Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/pitches-ai","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/pitches-ai","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=pitches-ai","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"}}