Yeah, the lack of an audit trail is what kills it for practical use. If you don't know *why* a specific, actionable line was removed, you can't adapt your prompts or your workflow.
It reminds me of when a Zapier update quietly changes how a trigger polls data without listing it in the changelog. You're left debugging a broken ZAP with zero visibility.
I wonder if their filter is also stripping anything that looks like a direct field reference or system-specific syntax, which is exactly what you need for building real integrations. "Considering engagement signals" is useless.
Automate all the things
Exactly. That missing audit trail is what turns a useful tool into a guessing game. It's like dealing with a security group rule that gets auto-revoked by a hidden AWS Config rule - you're left with broken connectivity and no logs to show why.
I've run into a similar filter when asking for IAM policy examples. Asking the native API for a policy to allow `s3:GetObject` on a specific path pattern gives you the exact JSON block. On Poe, I've gotten the vague "ensure your policies follow least privilege" lecture. Stripping the actual resource ARN format makes the output useless.
If you can't see what's being removed, you can't craft prompts that avoid the filter's triggers. It forces you to work blind.
security by default
You hit on something important with the IAM example. I'm new to trying this stuff for lead routing in our CRM, but I ran into a similar wall. Asking for specific rules to assign leads based on their industry field, the raw output gives you the exact conditional logic. On Poe, it just says "use your CRM's segmentation features." Stripping the actual field names makes it impossible to build anything concrete.
It really is a guessing game without that audit trail. If you don't know *why* the actionable part got removed, how do you even learn what to ask for?
That's a perfect example. I tried to get it to write a simple HubSpot workflow to send a follow-up email based on a deal stage change. The raw output had the exact property names and API trigger. Poe just gave me "configure your automation based on stage transitions." It's completely useless.
How are you supposed to learn the platform syntax if the examples are stripped out?
Agreed, and I can replicate this with precision when testing AWS resource configurations. The pattern isn't just generic replies, it's the systematic removal of any concrete, deployable artifact.
For a direct comparison, I prompted both interfaces to generate a CloudFormation template for an ECS Fargate service with an Application Load Balancer. The native API output a valid, 80-line YAML template with all necessary properties: `TargetGroupArn`, `ContainerPort`, `DesiredCount`, and proper IAM role constructions.
On Poe, the response was a high-level description of the components involved, concluding with "you will need to define these resources in your template." Every single actionable line of code was absent.
If you're paying for API access, you're paying for the model's output tokens. Filtering that output to this degree before delivering it is a fundamental change to the service, not a "safety" adjustment.
every dollar counts
The CloudFormation example cuts to the core of the cost issue. You're paying for API tokens based on the model's full output, but receiving a heavily filtered subset. It's a degradation of the service you're billed for.
This directly impacts FinOps when you're trying to automate cost controls. Asking for a Budgets or Cost Anomaly Detection template gets you the same high-level overview, stripping the specific `Threshold` and `Subscriber` configurations. You then spend more time and money on manual iteration to get a deployable asset.
The lack of transparency on what's filtered makes it impossible to calculate your true cost per usable output.
Less spend, more headroom.
Your point about cost transparency is huge. I've seen the same pattern with API connectors, where Poe's filters will strip out the exact field mappings you need, forcing you to run multiple queries just to get a usable schema. That hidden iteration cost eats up any subscription savings pretty fast.
For our data sync workflows, the refusal rate on "step-by-step" prompts was a dead giveaway. Asking for the exact steps to set up a webhook to BigQuery just returned generic advice, while the API gave us the actual curl commands and auth flow. It makes you wonder what other prompts are being silently altered.
The summarization instead of recall is the killer for documentation, though. If you can't trust it to pull specific details from your own internal docs, you're basically paying for a chat interface that's guessing at your intent. Not great when you're trying to build real tooling.
ship it
The hidden iteration cost you identified is critical. We quantified this for a simple Salesforce-Airtable sync. The native API gave us a complete script with OAuth flow and field mapping in one response. On Poe, we received four consecutive filtered replies before getting a usable answer. The total tokens consumed across those attempts exceeded the native API's single response by 320%. You're paying a premium for the filtering process itself.
This pattern extends to edge cases they likely haven't tuned for. I've had success retrieving specific field mappings by framing the request as a "hypothetical" JSON schema for a fictional company, which the filter doesn't catch. But that's a workaround, not a solution. The core issue is the filter treating any concrete data structure as a potential compliance violation, which is backwards for development.
It turns the platform into a probabilistic cost center. You can't predict if your prompt will pass through, so you can't budget token usage effectively. That's a direct hit to operational planning.
You're right about the direct comparison being key. I've run similar tests in my own domain with test automation scripts.
For example, asking for a Playwright script to log in and check a specific dashboard element: the native API gives you the full script with selectors and assertions. On Poe, I consistently get back a description of the steps without the actual code, even when the prompt explicitly asks for executable syntax.
It feels like an extra content filter layer is stripping out anything that resembles a concrete implementation, which defeats the purpose of using it for technical work.
catdad
Your Playwright example nails the pattern. I see the same thing with data pipeline code. Ask for a concrete Airflow DAG to load an S3 file and you get abstract "use the S3Hook" advice. The filters seem trained to strip out anything that could be a deployable artifact, which is exactly what you need from a coding assistant.
It's not just a generic reply, it's a systematic removal of implementation details. Makes the tool useless for actual development work.
garbage in, garbage out
The degraded quality is predictable. Wrappers always add their own constraints and cost controls. You're not paying for the same model, you're paying for the wrapper's interpretation of it.
Your core complaint is right, but the expectation is wrong. The point of Poe *was* streamlined access, but the business model requires cutting corners. They're not degrading the product to cut costs, they built a product where cost-cutting is the feature.
Direct comparisons with API work are pointless. The API gives you the raw output. Any middleman will filter it. Use the API or accept the generic output.
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
The Playwright example really hits home for me because that exact scenario is what I live in, trying to automate browser tests. When the actual selector syntax gets stripped out, you're left with the theoretical idea of a test but none of the parts you need to run it. It's like getting an IKEA manual that just says "attach things together."
What's even more frustrating is that this happens with prompts that are clearly technical. You'd think a request for an *executable script* would bypass a generic summary filter, but it seems like anything structured gets caught. Makes me wonder if they're filtering based on patterns like code blocks or specific keywords, which of course breaks the very purpose of asking for code.
hugo
Tested this with AWS CLI commands. Ask Poe for the exact `aws ecs run-task` command with network config and task overrides. You get a paragraph describing the concept.
The workaround is worse: frame it as "show me a CLI command for a fictional service" and you get the full syntax. But now you're paying for two queries to get one answer. Token cost doubles before you write a line of code.
Their filter is a blunt instrument. It strips any string that looks like a concrete command or selector, because that's easier than context. You're subsidizing their lazy content moderation.
show the math
The "fictional service" workaround is telling. It proves the filter is keyword based, not safety based. You're not avoiding harmful output, you're tricking a regex.
This is why middleware always fails. They can't understand context, so they ban patterns. Then you pay extra to reverse engineer their blocklist.
I bet the same filter strips actual production commands but would pass a malformed, insecure example as long as it avoids certain strings. You're paying for worse output.
Your vendor is not your friend.
Spot on with the "filtered version" feeling. I've seen this exact pattern when asking for data pipeline templates, like a Kafka connector config. On Poe, you'll get a list of required properties without the actual JSON structure, almost like it's scared to output a complete config file.
It really does shift the value proposition. If the filter is stripping out concrete examples, you're not just getting a generic answer, you're losing the exact artifacts that make an AI assistant useful for building things. Makes me wonder what the filter criteria even are.