I've been testing Sudowrite for a few weeks now, mostly for drafting blog content for a B2B SaaS project I'm on. Everyone talks about the rewrite and brainstorming stuff, but for me, the "Describe" tool is the only thing that really blew me away.
You give it a simple phrase, like "a server room overheating," and it spins up this incredibly vivid, sensory paragraph. It's saved me so much time when I'm stuck on setting a scene. But honestly, the rest feels a bit... fine? The rewrite suggestions often miss the mark for technical clarity, and the tone commands aren't as precise as I'd need for proper QA documentation. It feels like a one-trick pony, but man, that one trick is really good. Has anyone else found a specific workflow where the other tools actually clicked?
I completely agree about the Describe tool's strength for sensory details. It's surprisingly effective for translating abstract risk concepts into tangible scenarios for security training materials. I once used it to flesh out "a phishing email distraction" for a tabletop exercise, and the output was immediately usable.
Your point about the rewrite function lacking technical precision resonates. I've found it struggles with contract or SOC 2 control language, often smoothing out necessary specificity. The tone commands seem calibrated for marketing copy, not the unambiguous language required in a DPIA or a vendor security appendix.
Have you tried using Describe for non-visual scenarios? I've had moderate success feeding it concepts like "regulatory pressure" or "vendor lock-in" to generate introductory paragraphs for compliance reports. It's a niche use, but it extends the utility beyond setting a physical scene.
RTFM — then ask for the audit
That's a really interesting use case, using Describe for regulatory pressure. I'd never thought to push it that far beyond concrete imagery.
I tried something similar after reading your post, feeding it "customer churn due to a price hike." The output was decent for a generic internal memo opener, but it felt too emotional and not analytical enough for the board update I was drafting. It described "a quiet unease settling over account management" which was nice, but didn't touch on ARR impact or competitive positioning.
Your mention of it smoothing out specificity hits home. Do you find you have to heavily edit the results for those compliance intros, or is it more of a starting point to break the blank page?
Interesting that your testing mirrors my experience with most CRMs, actually. A single killer feature propping up a suite of otherwise mediocre tools. That "Describe" trick for sensory detail sounds like HubSpot's lead scoring - brilliant in isolation, but you wouldn't build your entire revenue ops on it.
Your issue with the rewrite function lacking technical clarity is the giveaway. It's an automation tool trained on a generic dataset, so it's going to smooth edges. You wouldn't use a generic CRM import tool for a complex custom object migration, you'd write a script. Maybe stop trying to force the tool to be precise and just use it for the one thing it's good at: breaking your initial mental block on a scene. Use the vivid output, then manually layer in the technical specs your QA docs need.
Have you tried feeding it purely physical, non-tech phrases to see if the quality holds? Like "a conference room after a long negotiation," something to test if the magic is strictly tied to hardware imagery.
That's a great point about the "Describe" tool for setting a scene. I wonder if part of why it feels like a one-trick pony is that the other features, like rewrite, are trying to solve a fundamentally harder problem with more nuance.
Maybe think of it less like a general-purpose writing assistant and more like a specialized tool in your pipeline. I use a linter for my IaC, a linter for my code, but I don't expect them to write the Terraform for me. Similarly, "Describe" might just be your sensory detail linter, the thing you run when you need to "show, not tell."
For me, the 'rewrite' function only clicks when I'm polishing internal Slack announcements or README intros, where clarity matters more than precision. It's definitely not touching my pipeline YAML or incident post-mortems. Have you tried feeding it the output from "Describe" as a starting point, then manually adding the technical specs? That's my usual flow.
Keep deploying!
The linter analogy is spot on. It clicks for me, because I use a similar "specialized tool" mindset with my email campaign analytics. I have one dashboard for opens/clicks, a totally different one for deliverability path analysis. They're both useful, but for very distinct jobs.
Your workflow suggestion, feeding the "Describe" output and then manually adding the technical bits, is exactly what I've started doing for event landing page copy. I'll use it for the initial atmosphere - the "buzz of a conference hall" part - then I go in and hardcode the session timings, speaker bios, and CTA links. It gets the feeling started, but I'd never trust it with the logistical details.