Superhuman Mail vs Missive

Multi account

1. switcherConnect several accounts across providers — Gmail, Microsoft 365, IMAP — and work them from one place

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman clearly supports connecting and instantly switching between multiple Gmail and Outlook/Microsoft 365 accounts from one place (docs-12, docs-19, docs-20, docs-24, docs-40, docs-53), which covers two of the three providers in the story. However, no evidence mentions generic IMAP account support, so the 'switcher from any IMAP provider' part of the story is unaddressed. Missing for 10: explicit IMAP account support/connection, independent/hands-on confirmation of multi-provider account switching beyond vendor docs.

   • [claimed-docs] “you can instantly switch between Outlook and Gmail accounts without switching apps.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add all your Gmail and Outlook account calendars, and easily toggle them on and off.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can instantly switch between Outlook and Gmail accounts without switching apps”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”
   • [claimed-docs] “it's available for [Gmail](https://blog.superhuman.com/gmail-alternatives/) and [Outlook](https://blog.superhuman.com/outlook-alternatives/)…”
   • [claimed-docs] “It helps you move faster, save time, respond sooner, and eliminate email anxiety. And it's available for Gmail and Outlook.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed4/10

   Evidence only touches this obliquely: contacts management explicitly 'syncs with Office 365 and Google' (missive-docs-23), and shared/team inboxes are documented (missive-docs-32, missive-docs-28), implying multi-account consolidation, but there is no explicit documentation in the pack of connecting Gmail, Microsoft 365, and generic IMAP accounts as email sources worked from one unified inbox. Missing for 10: explicit account-connection docs for Gmail/O365/IMAP email (not just contacts sync), and confirmation that all provider types can be combined in one inbox view.

   • [claimed-docs] “Manage your contacts in shared or private address books. ✓ Syncs with Office 365 and Googl”
   • [claimed-docs] “From distribution lists to shared inboxes”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple people work out of the same inbox, without stepping on each other’s toes.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Portability

1. switcherMy mail stays reachable over open protocols and standard formats — IMAP/JMAP/SMTP access and standards-based export — so no client can lock me in

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman is a proprietary client layered on top of Gmail/Outlook accounts; the evidence pack contains no mention of IMAP/JMAP/SMTP access, standards-based export, or any data-portability guarantee — only MCP integration for AI assistants and account switching between Gmail/Outlook. No documentation addresses protocol-level openness or export, so switchers have no evidence their mail stays reachable outside Superhuman's own app.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of IMAP, JMAP, or SMTP access for user mailboxes, nor any standards-based export functionality; all connectivity evidence is about REST API, webhooks, and MCP integrations for AI/automation, not about open mail protocol interoperability or data portability for switchers.

   ⚑ flag

2. switcherSelf-host the email app and keep the mail pipeline under my own control

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman Mail is a cloud SaaS client layered on top of Gmail/Outlook accounts; there is no evidence of any self-hosted deployment option, open-source server, or ability to run the mail pipeline on infrastructure the user controls. All evidence points to a hosted, proprietary service with no self-host path, so this axis is not delivered.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive is a cloud-hosted SaaS collaboration/email platform with no documented self-hosting option; community evidence confirms mail data routes through Missive's own servers (missive-comm-1), and no docs mention on-premise or self-hosted deployment.

   • [community] “User asked if Gmail/Yahoo emails pass through Missive's servers. After being told TLS is used but data does route through Missive's servers,…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent access

1. ai-native userPoint an agent at llms.txt or agent-oriented docs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   The probe explicitly shows llms.txt returns 404 and no agent-oriented docs (openapi/well-known) are found; while an MCP server exists, there's no evidence of llms.txt or similar agent-discovery docs a user could point an agent at.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Direct probes show no llms.txt, no docs.md, and no OpenAPI spec exposed at expected locations (all 404), and no evidence of agent-oriented documentation formats being offered elsewhere; while Missive has an MCP server (a different axis), there's no proof an agent can be pointed at llms.txt or similar agent-readable docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/docs.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userRun the product headlessly / in CI for automation

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman Mail is a GUI email client with an MCP server and agent triggers, but there is no evidence of a CLI, API, or documented mode to run the product headlessly or invoke it from a CI pipeline — probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both returned 404. The story is plausible for an AI-native product with automation features, so it is not out of scope, but no evidence supports the specific headless/CI capability.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialprobed3/10

   Missive exposes a REST API, webhooks, and a documented MCP server that let external systems and AI agents trigger actions without using the UI, which could be scripted from CI/automation pipelines. However there is no evidence of an official CLI, headless mode, Docker/container deployment, or CI-specific documentation/examples for running Missive itself in automated pipelines. Missing for 10: dedicated CLI or headless execution mode, CI/CD integration guides, and independent confirmation of automation-in-CI use cases.

   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “API & MCP access”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://missiveapp.com/docs/ai/mcp/server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userPlug MCP servers into this product so it can use their tools

   weight 3 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   All evidence describes Superhuman Mail acting as an MCP *server* that Claude/ChatGPT connect to (docs-10, docs-37, docs-24, probe-3), not Superhuman itself consuming external MCP servers' tools as a client. There is no evidence that a user can plug third-party MCP servers into Superhuman so it gains their tools.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullclaimed8/10

   Missive documents a clear custom-MCP flow: users add a 'Custom MCP' server with a URL and auth, and 'connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot' to let the assistant use internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling, alongside pre-built MCP integrations (Notion, Linear, Attio, Lindy.ai). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the custom MCP connection flow beyond vendor docs, and more detail on tool invocation limits or reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add "Custom MCP" and enter a name and your server URL. Choose an authentication method and click Add”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive ships with ready-to-use MCP integrations for Notion, Linear, and Attio, plus AI automation platforms like Lindy.ai.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With custom MCP, you can connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprieta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprietary data, or homegrown too…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Extend capabilities beyond Missive's built-in MCP integrations”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive ships with ready-to-use MCP integrations for Notion, Linear, and Attio, plus AI automation platforms like Lindy.ai. The assistant ru…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userConnect an agent via an official MCP server

   weight 3 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail✓fullprobed8/10

   Superhuman documents an official Mail MCP server that connects Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants to the inbox/calendar for summarizing, drafting, sending, and scheduling, with explicit send-approval controls, confirmed by a dedicated probe finding the official MCP page. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party verification of the MCP server working (community evidence pack lacks any first-hand MCP usage reports) and technical details on the MCP server's implementation/spec compliance.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude or ChatGPT directly to your inbox to read, draft, and send emails with a single prompt — no copy-pasting required.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullprobed9/10

   Missive explicitly documents an official MCP server that lets external AI apps (Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor) connect and act on conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts with configurable permissions, and a dedicated docs page for the MCP server is confirmed to exist via probe. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party confirmation that external agents successfully connect and operate via this server.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://missiveapp.com/docs/ai/mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “API & MCP access”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

5. ai-native userUse an official CLI

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman Mail is an email client with an MCP integration and command palette (Cmd+K), but there is no evidence of an official CLI for AI-native workflows; probes for llms.txt/openapi also return 404, and no CLI is mentioned anywhere in docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Cmd+K brings up Superhuman Command, where you can instantly do any action — and also learn the shortcut for next time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Superhuman, one shortcut rules them all: Cmd+K. Cmd+K brings up Superhuman Command, where you can instantly do any action”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive is an email/collaboration app offering REST API, webhooks, and MCP integrations, but no evidence anywhere in the pack mentions an official CLI tool for interacting with Missive. Probes for docs/openapi manifests return 404s, and no CLI-related changelog or docs entries exist.

   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/docs.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

6. ai-native userDrive the product through a documented public API

   weight 3 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail~partialprobed6/10

   Superhuman ships a documented, public MCP server (email-mcp) that lets AI-native users drive inbox/calendar actions—summarize, draft, send, schedule—directly from Claude, ChatGPT and other AI tools, which is a real programmatic surface for agentic use. However, probes confirm there is no traditional REST/OpenAPI-documented public API (llms.txt and openapi.json endpoints all 404), so developers outside the MCP/AI-assistant flow have no documented way to integrate. Missing for 10: a general-purpose REST/GraphQL API with OpenAPI spec, and any independent/hands-on verification of the MCP server's reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every draft matches your voice and tone, using your unique style for each person. You can review the drafts in Superhuman Mail, or edit and …”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullprobed8/10

   Missive documents a REST API, webhooks, UI integrations, and custom channels for developers (missive-docs-31/39/15), plus an official MCP server exposing conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts to AI apps like Claude/ChatGPT/Cursor (missive-docs-1/20, missive-probe-4). This gives AI-native users a documented, programmatic way to drive the product beyond the UI. Missing for 10: a discoverable OpenAPI/swagger spec or llms.txt (all probed and 404'd) and independent third-party corroboration of API robustness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://missiveapp.com/docs/ai/mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “API & MCP access”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

7. ai-native userIssue scoped/least-privilege API credentials for an agent

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Evidence shows Superhuman Mail connects to Claude/ChatGPT via MCP and includes approval gates ('every send action requires explicit approval') plus admin-level 'connector permissions' governance, but there is no evidence of an actual scoped/least-privilege API credential or key system that an ai-native user can issue to individual agents. Probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI specs both return 404, suggesting no public API surface for credential scoping exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed5/10

   Missive's MCP integration explicitly notes external AI apps connect "with the permissions you choose" (missive-docs-20) and custom MCP setup lets you "choose an authentication method" (missive-docs-17), implying some scoped access control for agents. However, there's no documentation of granular API-key scopes, role-based permission tiers, or a dedicated credential-issuance UI for least-privilege agent access. Missing for 10: explicit scoped API key/token generation flow, documented permission levels/roles for agents, and independent confirmation that scoping is enforced in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add "Custom MCP" and enter a name and your server URL. Choose an authentication method and click Add”
   • [claimed-docs] “API & MCP access”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

8. ai-native userBuild against official SDKs

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Evidence shows Superhuman ships an MCP server for AI assistants (docs-10, docs-37, probe-3) but there is no mention of official SDKs, client libraries, or public API documentation for developers; explicit probes for llms.txt and OpenAPI/Swagger specs both returned 404 (superhuman-probe-1, superhuman-probe-2), indicating no official SDK exists.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive documents a REST API, webhooks, custom channels, and MCP integrations for developers, but no evidence anywhere mentions official client SDKs (e.g. language libraries) for building against Missive; probes even show 404s for OpenAPI/spec files that would typically back SDK generation.

   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/docs.md”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

9. ai-native userSubscribe to events via webhooks

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Evidence shows Superhuman offers an MCP server for AI assistant integration and an agents/automation feature, but nothing describes webhook subscriptions or event-driven push notifications for external systems; API/OpenAPI probes also returned 404s, indicating no documented webhook API.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed4/10

   Missive's developer tools page explicitly lists webhooks alongside REST API and custom channels, confirming the capability exists, but there is no detail on event types, subscription setup, payload format, or independent corroboration of webhook usage. Missing for 10: documented list of subscribable event types, webhook setup/config instructions, security/signing details, and third-party confirmation of reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agentic features

1. ai-native userGet AI-generated insights and suggestions from my data inside the product

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed9/10

   Superhuman Mail delivers extensive AI-generated insights from user data: Ask AI answers questions by mining inbox content (e.g., flight/hotel/offsite queries), Auto Drafts pull context from inbox, calendar, and web to write ready-to-send replies, Auto Labels classify and surface important emails, and read-status/follow-up nudges surface actionable insights. First-party docs are extensive and consistent across many features (Ask AI, Auto Drafts 2.0, Auto Labels, Email Assistant), though independent hands-on validation specifically of the AI-insight features (vs. general product commentary) is thin. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration specifically validating the accuracy or usefulness of AI-generated insights (most evidence is vendor-authored).

   • [claimed-docs] “You can now get rapid answers without having to remember senders, guess keywords, or comb through messages.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: _"where is the q2 offsite"_, _"when is my flight"_, _"where am I staying"_, and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: "where is the q2 offsite", "when is my flight", "where am I staying", and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Drafts now gather context from your inbox, your calendar, and the web. They can use information from other emails, insert availability,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Each draft can use your inbox, calendar, and the web to write replies that are ready to send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every message that needs a reply comes with a draft written in your voice. Each draft can use your inbox, calendar, and the web to write rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI will automatically separate marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates, so you can respond faster to what matters mos…”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Auto Labels, Superhuman Mail automatically classifies incoming messages — so you can focus on what matters most.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed5/10

   Missive's AI assistant can summarize inboxes, draft replies, and triage conversations against connected data (CRM, docs) via MCP, and can compose/reply/translate with AI, which counts as AI-generated insights/suggestions from data. However, evidence is mostly marketing copy without hands-on demonstration of proactive 'insights' (e.g., analytics-driven suggestions) and no independent corroboration of quality or accuracy. missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of insight quality, concrete examples of proactive analytics-style insights beyond summarization/drafting, and detail on how suggestions are surfaced in UI.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “Quickly compose, reply, and translate messages with AI directly in Missive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”
   • [claimed-docs] “With custom MCP, you can connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprieta…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userSet up automations that run autonomously in the background

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman documents proactive automations: Auto Archive/Auto Labels/Auto Drafts run automatically in the background, and a newer 'agents' feature lets users build proactive agents via chat or visual builder with admin-governed triggers and connectors. However, sending still requires explicit human approval, limiting true autonomy, and there is no independent/hands-on corroboration of the agent-builder feature working as described. Missing for 10: third-party verification of the visual builder/agent triggers, detail on failure/error handling for autonomous runs, and evidence of unattended send/execute actions.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI can automatically archive marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates. Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutt…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Drafts now gather context from your inbox, your calendar, and the web. They can use information from other emails, insert availability,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed7/10

   Missive documents rule-based workflow automation (up to 1000 rules) and long-running AI assistant sessions that operate in the background with a session tab showing progress ('no longer need babysitting'), plus agent-driven triage of conversations against a CRM before a human looks at them — evidence of autonomous background automation. However, there's no independent/hands-on confirmation of reliability or scope of autonomy, and details on triggers/scheduling for rules are thin. Missing for 10: independent corroboration of autonomous execution reliability, deeper documentation on rule triggers/scheduling and failure handling.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to, and a conversation links back to the sessions attached to it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Long assistant sessions no longer need babysitting. The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to”
   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userDelegate tasks to a built-in AI assistant inside the product

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed8/10

   Superhuman ships a built-in AI assistant that auto-labels, archives, drafts replies, answers questions, and now supports building proactive agents from triggers/connectors with admin governance, all documented extensively as first-party features (docs-2,6,25,27,38,61,62,64). This directly matches delegating tasks to an in-product AI assistant beyond simple automation. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on user reports specifically validating the delegation/agent-building experience (community evidence covers general product sentiment, not this AI-assistant delegation feature).

   • [claimed-docs] “Every email that needs a reply comes with a draft—you can just edit and send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If your email needs a response, you’re automatically reminded to follow up—with a draft already written and ready to send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handle every follow-up with one prompt. Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each reci…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Drafts now gather context from your inbox, your calendar, and the web. They can use information from other emails, insert availability,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every draft matches your voice and tone, using your unique style for each person. You can review the drafts in Superhuman Mail, or edit and …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullclaimed7/10

   Missive documents a built-in AI Assistant/Copilot that can compose, reply, translate, triage conversations against CRM data, and run extended 'sessions' with a visible status tab, plus access internal tools via MCP — all delegatable from within the product (missive-docs-49, missive-docs-34, missive-docs-22, missive-docs-16, missive-docs-52). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence of actual task delegation outcomes and more detail on assistant capabilities/limits beyond first-party changelog blurbs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Quickly compose, reply, and translate messages with AI directly in Missive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Long assistant sessions no longer need babysitting. The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to”
   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your AI assistant access to your own tools and internal systems, directly from Missive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to, and a conversation links back to the sessions attached to it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOperate the product with natural-language commands

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullprobed8/10

   Superhuman supports natural-language operation via Ask AI queries, plain-language personalization instructions, AI-prompt-based Auto Labels, and full MCP integration letting users drive inbox/calendar actions (summarize, draft, send, schedule) via Claude/ChatGPT with a single prompt. missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of natural-language command accuracy and no first-party demo of complex multi-step NL commands beyond simple prompts.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude or ChatGPT directly to your inbox to read, draft, and send emails with a single prompt — no copy-pasting required.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: _"where is the q2 offsite"_, _"when is my flight"_, _"where am I staying"_, and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add plain-language instructions like "write in lowercase" or "use this booking link" to personalize your writing and scheduling features.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can even make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts like "job applications" or "requests to review work".”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullclaimed7/10

   Missive's AI Assistant/Copilot and MCP integration let users issue natural-language requests (e.g., 'Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies,' 'compose, reply, and translate messages with AI') and let external AI apps act on conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts through natural language via Claude/ChatGPT/Cursor. The command bar also supports quick text-based commands for actions like snoozing. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on user validation of natural-language accuracy and no detailed listing of all supported natural-language actions beyond marketing copy.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “Long assistant sessions no longer need babysitting. The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to”
   • [claimed-docs] “Quickly compose, reply, and translate messages with AI directly in Missive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask how a feature works, how to set up a rule, or where a setting lives. The answer comes straight from the Missive documentation instead of…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Master the command bar: keyboard shortcuts and quick commands. You can use the following patterns to initiate a search: search searc sear se…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Api quality

1. ai-native userExplore an interactive API reference with runnable examples

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   There is no evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable examples; probes explicitly confirm no OpenAPI/swagger spec and no llms.txt is available, and the MCP server page offers no interactive docs/playground.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive documents a REST API and developer tools, but there is no evidence of an interactive API reference or runnable examples; explicit probes for openapi/swagger specs all returned 404s, indicating no interactive API explorer exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDownload a machine-readable API spec (OpenAPI or equivalent)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Direct probes for OpenAPI/Swagger specs and llms.txt all returned 404s, and no documentation mentions a downloadable machine-readable API spec; only an MCP server is offered, which is a separate mechanism, not an API spec.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Probes for OpenAPI/Swagger spec files at standard locations all returned 404, and no evidence pack item mentions a downloadable machine-readable API spec despite Missive having a REST API and developer docs.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userTest against a sandbox environment without touching production data

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions a sandbox, test/staging environment, or any way to develop or validate AI workflows against non-production data — the docs only describe production-facing features (MCP, auto-drafts, auto-labels) with no mention of test environments. missing for 10: any sandbox/staging environment, test data isolation, or dev-mode API/MCP endpoint separate from live inbox data.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence of any sandbox, staging, or test environment offered by Missive; all MCP/API access documented operates directly against live conversations, contacts, calendars, and drafts (missive-probe-rt-2), with no mention of a non-production mode for testing.

   ⚑ flag

4. ai-native userRely on versioned APIs with a documented deprecation policy

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence of any versioned public API or documented deprecation policy; probes for OpenAPI specs returned 404s, and there's no mention of API versioning or deprecation practices anywhere in the docs. The only developer-facing surface found is the MCP server, which is unrelated to API versioning guarantees. missing for 10: any public API documentation, version numbers, changelog/deprecation policy, or evidence of stable programmatic interfaces.

   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   There is a REST API and MCP integrations documented, but no evidence of API versioning scheme or any documented deprecation policy; probes for openapi/spec files all 404. missing for 10: versioning scheme documentation, explicit deprecation/backward-compatibility policy, changelog of breaking API changes.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Agent workflows

1. ai-native userAn external agent — Claude, ChatGPT, or my own — can read, triage, draft, and send my email end to end through a documented connection

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullprobed8/10

   Superhuman documents a first-party MCP server connecting Claude/ChatGPT (and other assistants) to inbox and calendar, enabling reading, summarizing, drafting, and sending emails via prompts, with explicit send-approval controls and an official MCP feature probe confirming the endpoint exists. missing for 10: independent/hands-on third-party verification of the MCP integration working end-to-end, and detail on triage/labeling actions being fully agent-driven rather than app-side AI.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude or ChatGPT directly to your inbox to read, draft, and send emails with a single prompt — no copy-pasting required.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every draft matches your voice and tone, using your unique style for each person. You can review the drafts in Superhuman Mail, or edit and …”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialprobed6/10

   Missive documents an official MCP server (missive-probe-4) that lets external AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor connect and act on conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts with configurable permissions (missive-docs-1, missive-docs-20), including summarizing inboxes, drafting replies, and triaging conversations against a CRM (missive-docs-21, missive-docs-22). However, explicit end-to-end 'send' capability via the agent is not directly documented, and there is no independent/hands-on corroboration of the full read-triage-draft-send loop working in practice. Missing for 10: explicit documentation of agent-initiated sending (not just drafting), and third-party/hands-on verification of the full workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “With custom MCP, you can connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprieta…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprietary data, or homegrown too…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://missiveapp.com/docs/ai/mcp/server”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ai assistant

1. ai-native userAsk an assistant questions across my whole inbox and calendar — who said what, what's outstanding — and get grounded answers

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed8/10

   Superhuman's Ask AI feature directly supports natural-language Q&A grounded in the inbox and calendar (e.g., 'where is the q2 offsite', 'when is my flight', 'where am I staying'), and the MCP integration extends this to Claude/ChatGPT for cross-inbox/calendar queries, drafting, and scheduling grounded in real data. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on evidence validating accuracy of 'grounded answers' across a full inbox+calendar corpus, and detail on how well it surfaces 'what's outstanding' beyond follow-up reminders.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can now get rapid answers without having to remember senders, guess keywords, or comb through messages.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: _"where is the q2 offsite"_, _"when is my flight"_, _"where am I staying"_, and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: "where is the q2 offsite", "when is my flight", "where am I staying", and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed6/10

   Missive's AI Assistant/MCP integration lets external AI apps (Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor) act on conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts, and docs explicitly mention asking Claude to summarize the inbox and draft replies — directly supporting cross-inbox Q&A grounded in Missive data. However, evidence doesn't demonstrate calendar-specific querying depth or explicit 'what's outstanding' style aggregate reasoning across the whole inbox, and there's no independent/hands-on validation of answer groundedness or accuracy. Missing for 10: concrete examples of calendar-integrated Q&A, evidence of multi-conversation aggregate answers, and independent corroboration of answer quality/groundedness.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”
   • [claimed-docs] “With custom MCP, you can connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprieta…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ai drafting

1. ai-native userAI drafts replies in my own voice and tone — ready to review and send, not generic boilerplate

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed9/10

   Superhuman's Auto Drafts feature explicitly writes replies in the user's own voice/tone (matching style from sent emails, even per-recipient), pulling context from inbox/calendar/web, and presents them ready to edit and send rather than generic boilerplate — with explicit human approval before sending. This is well-documented across first-party docs with consistent detail; missing for 10: independent/hands-on user corroboration of draft quality/voice-matching accuracy beyond vendor claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “Just jot down some phrases, and we'll turn them into a full email. Best of all, the email sounds like you. Superhuman AI matches the voice a…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every message that needs a reply comes with a draft written in your voice.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every draft matches your voice and tone, using your unique style for each person.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every draft matches your voice and tone, using your unique style for each person. You can review the drafts in Superhuman Mail, or edit and …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Drafts now gather context from your inbox, your calendar, and the web. They can use information from other emails, insert availability,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Each draft can use your inbox, calendar, and the web to write replies that are ready to send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every message that needs a reply comes with a draft written in your voice. Each draft can use your inbox, calendar, and the web to write rep…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “with Auto Drafts 2.0, every message that needs a reply comes with a draft. You can just edit and send.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed4/10

   Missive documents AI compose/reply features ("Quickly compose, reply, and translate messages with AI directly in Missive" and "Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies") confirming AI drafting exists, but there is no evidence describing tone/voice personalization or that drafts are tuned to the user's own writing style versus generic boilerplate. Missing for 10: evidence of voice/tone learning or personalization, hands-on examples showing draft quality matches user's style, independent corroboration of draft usefulness.

   • [claimed-docs] “Quickly compose, reply, and translate messages with AI directly in Missive.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Ai triage

1. ai-native userAI triages my inbox for me — auto-labeling, categorizing, and surfacing what needs attention — with behavior I can steer and audit

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed8/10

   Superhuman documents auto-labeling ('Auto Labels'), custom AI-prompt categories, auto-archiving of low-priority mail, inbox splitting into topic tabs, and immediate labeling on arrival — directly matching triage/categorization needs. Steerability is evidenced via custom prompt-based Auto Labels, plain-language instructions, and admin governance controls, plus auditability via draft review before sending and explicit send approval. missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of triage accuracy or audit trail is absent, and community evidence is largely about UI/performance rather than AI triage quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI can automatically archive marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates. Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutt…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI will automatically separate marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates, so you can respond faster to what matters mos…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can even make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts like "job applications" or "requests to review work".”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutter for good.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Labels, Superhuman AI will automatically separate marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates, so you can respond faster to wha…”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts, and then split your inbox into tabs using these custom Auto Labels.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”
   • [claimed-docs] “Emails are labeled the moment they arrive, so you can see what's important and what's not.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Custom Auto Labels let you categorize emails with your own AI prompts. (Available for our Business and Enterprise customers.)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed6/10

   Missive's AI Assistant/MCP integration explicitly supports agent-driven triage ('Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them'), inbox summarization, and rule-based automation (up to 1000 rules), and provides audit trails via action logs and a session tab showing assistant activity, plus permission-scoped access for steering behavior. However, there's no explicit mention of automatic labeling/categorization as a distinct AI feature (only manual rules), and no independent/hands-on evidence confirming triage quality works as advertised. Missing for 10: explicit auto-labeling/categorization feature description, hands-on validation of triage accuracy, and clearer UI for reviewing/adjusting AI triage decisions beyond session logs.

   • [claimed-docs] “Let an agent triage new conversations against your CRM before you look at them”
   • [claimed-docs] “Ask Claude to summarize your inbox and draft replies without leaving the chat”
   • [claimed-docs] “The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to, and a conversation links back to the sessions attached to it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Long assistant sessions no longer need babysitting. The session tab now shows what the assistant is up to”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every action within Missive is logged, so you know who did what, and when.”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userPerform bulk operations across many items at once

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman supports batch-style operations like Auto Archive, Auto Labels, and 'Handle every follow-up with one prompt' (checking read status, drafting all nudges, sending in bulk) plus MCP-driven workflows that run across the whole inbox/calendar, giving genuine bulk automation for triage, labeling, and follow-ups. However, this is scoped to email/calendar items only and there's no evidence of arbitrary bulk operations across many items in a single explicit action (e.g., bulk delete/move/tag N selected emails via UI or API in one command) or bulk operation limits/performance at scale. missing for 10: evidence of explicit multi-item bulk actions (e.g., select-and-bulk-process UI), scale/performance data on bulk automation, and independent/hands-on confirmation of bulk operations working reliably.

   • [claimed-docs] “Handle every follow-up with one prompt. Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each reci…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each recipient is most likely to open it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutter for good.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI can automatically archive marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates. Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutt…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can even make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts like "job applications" or "requests to review work".”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed3/10

   Missive documents rule-based automation ('Up to 1000 rules') and API/MCP access that could act across many items, plus a bulk auto-archive list feature, but there is no direct evidence of a bulk-select/bulk-action UI or bulk API endpoint for acting on many conversations/contacts at once. Missing for 10: explicit bulk-action UI documentation, bulk API/webhook examples, and independent confirmation of scale-limits for automation across many items.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Picking Everyone in a shared account's Auto-archive list covers anyone who joins your organization later, instead of adding each person by h…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userDefine rules that trigger actions automatically on events

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed7/10

   Superhuman documents explicit rule/trigger-based automation: custom Auto Labels driven by user-defined AI prompts, Auto Archive, Auto Drafts, and a stated capability to "create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect" with admin governance over agent building. This directly matches the ai-native automation-depth story of defining rules that fire actions on events. missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of the rule engine's reliability and richer documentation of trigger/condition/action logic beyond marketing copy.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can even make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts like "job applications" or "requests to review work".”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts, and then split your inbox into tabs using these custom Auto Labels.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Custom Auto Labels let you categorize emails with your own AI prompts. (Available for our Business and Enterprise customers.)”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman AI can automatically archive marketing, cold pitches, and social network updates. Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutt…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutter for good.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed5/10

   Missive confirms a native Rules feature ("Automate your workflows", "Up to 1000 rules", and documentation referencing 'how to set up a rule') that lets users define automation triggered by events, plus webhooks/API for event-driven actions. However, the evidence pack lacks concrete documentation of what trigger events or actions rules support, no hands-on examples of rule configuration, and no independent corroboration of automation depth or reliability. missing for 10: detailed rule trigger/action catalog, hands-on walkthrough of rule creation, independent user validation of automation reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Ask how a feature works, how to set up a rule, or where a setting lives. The answer comes straight from the Missive documentation instead of…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userSchedule recurring jobs or workflows

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed5/10

   Superhuman documents 'agents that run proactively based on triggers you set' and MCP-driven 'workflows that run across your inbox and calendar,' suggesting some automation/triggering capability, but there's no detail on recurring/scheduled job mechanics (e.g., cron-like scheduling, workflow persistence) and no independent/hands-on corroboration. Missing for 10: explicit recurring-schedule configuration details, independent verification that these agent workflows actually run repeatedly/reliably, and more than a passing marketing mention.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use chat or our visual builder to create agents that run proactively based on triggers you set and the work you connect.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Admins govern who can build agents and control connector permissions across the entire org from one place.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive documents an AI Assistant, MCP integrations, and an event-triggered 'rules' automation engine (up to 1000 rules) for workflows, but nothing in the evidence describes scheduling recurring/cron-style jobs or timed recurring AI workflows — rules appear to be trigger-based, not time-scheduled. missing for 10: any mention of a scheduler, cron-like recurrence, or time-based recurring job configuration for AI/assistant workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give your Missive AI Assistant access to internal APIs, databases, or custom tooling”
   • [claimed-docs] “With custom MCP, you can connect any MCP-compatible server to Missive's AI Copilot and let AI interact with your internal systems, proprieta…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userVersion, review, and roll back my automations

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman offers automations like Auto Labels, Auto Archive, agent builders, and MCP-driven workflows, but there is no evidence of version history, review/audit trails, or rollback capability for these automations. Missing for 10: version history of automation rules, diff/review UI before changes take effect, rollback/undo mechanism for automation edits.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive documents rules/automations, an activity log, and AI session tabs, but there is no evidence of any version history, review workflow, or rollback mechanism for automations/rules — no changelog history for rules, no diff/versioning UI, no undo/rollback feature mentioned anywhere.

   ⚑ flag

Calendar

1. power-userSee my calendar, respond to invites, and create events without leaving the email client

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman Calendar lets users view their day in the email side panel, add/toggle multiple calendars, and use 'Find Time' to schedule meetings with teammates across time zones, all without leaving the client. However, none of the evidence explicitly confirms responding to/RSVPing on calendar invites or manually creating new calendar events from within the client. Missing for 10: explicit invite-response (accept/decline) capability, explicit event-creation UI/flow evidence, independent hands-on confirmation of calendar features.

   • [claimed-docs] “Simply add teammates, click "Find Time", and instantly see when everyone is free.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can add all your Gmail and Outlook account calendars, and easily toggle them on and off.”
   • [claimed-docs] “When any email mentions a date, Superhuman Mail will show your day in the right side panel — so you always have context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Working across time zones? Add a secondary time zone, so scheduling between San Francisco and New York (or London and Tokyo) is effortless.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add a secondary time zone, so scheduling between San Francisco and New York (or London and Tokyo) is effortless.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed2/10

   The only calendar-related evidence is indirect: MCP changelog entries note that external AI apps can 'act on your conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts,' implying Missive holds calendar data, but there is no documentation of an in-app calendar view, RSVP/invite response flow, or event-creation UI comparable to inbox features. Missing for 10: dedicated calendar panel/view docs, invite accept/decline UI, and event creation flow evidence — only an AI-assistant-access mention exists.

   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”
   • [claimed-docs] “External AI apps like Claude, ChatGPT, or Cursor can now connect to Missive through the Model Context Protocol and act on your conversations…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. power-userShare my availability or insert bookable meeting times directly into an email

   weight 1 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed7/10

   Superhuman's Auto Drafts explicitly 'insert availability' pulled from your calendar (docs-38), the Calendar feature lets you 'Find Time' to instantly see when teammates are free (docs-7), and users can add plain-language instructions like 'use this booking link' to personalize scheduling in drafts (docs-9, docs-54, docs-60). Missing for 10: independent/hands-on verification of this exact workflow and more detail on native booking-link generation vs. relying on a user-supplied link.

   • [claimed-docs] “Auto Drafts now gather context from your inbox, your calendar, and the web. They can use information from other emails, insert availability,…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Simply add teammates, click "Find Time", and instantly see when everyone is free.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add plain-language instructions like "write in lowercase" or "use this booking link" to personalize your writing and scheduling features.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add plain-language instructions like "write in lowercase" or "use this booking link" to personalize your writing and schedul”
   • [claimed-docs] “Add plain-language instructions like "write in lowercase" or "use this booking link" to personalize your writing”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows Missive's MCP integration can 'act on... calendar' generally, but there is no mention of any feature to share availability, generate scheduling links, or insert bookable meeting times into an email — a distinct capability from generic calendar access.

   ⚑ flag

Sending

1. power-userSee whether and when recipients opened my email

   weight 1 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialcommunity6/10

   Superhuman docs confirm read-status tracking ('check which emails have been read', 'Read statuses are now shared across your team') and community evidence (superhuman-comm-1, criticizing image-based tracking as 'spying') independently corroborates that read/open tracking is a real, functioning feature. However, no evidence explicitly confirms a timestamped 'when opened' view for individual recipients—only binary read/unread status and team-level sharing are documented. Missing for 10: explicit per-recipient open-time timestamps, hands-on verification of accuracy/reliability of the read-tracking mechanism.

   • [claimed-docs] “Handle every follow-up with one prompt. Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each reci…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each recipient is most likely to open it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Read Statuses: Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [community] “"Superhuman doesn't even let its own customers turn images off. So merely by using Superhuman, you are vulnerable to the exact same spying t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions read receipts, email open tracking, or notifications about recipient opens/views; the pack covers collaboration, MCP/AI integrations, and admin features but nothing about tracking email opens.

   ⚑ flag

2. power-userSchedule an email to send later and undo a send within a grace window

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions scheduled send or an undo-send grace window feature for Superhuman Mail; the docs cover AI drafting, labeling, MCP integration, and other features but nothing about delayed/scheduled sending or send-undo functionality.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions scheduled sending or an undo-send grace window; the pack covers MCP integrations, collaboration features, snoozing, and canned responses but nothing about send scheduling or send-delay/undo functionality.

   ⚑ flag

Templates

1. power-userInsert saved snippets or templates — with variables and attachments — instead of retyping the same reply

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed5/10

   Superhuman's Snippets feature is well documented — insert commonly-used phrases, paragraphs, or whole emails via keyboard shortcut, and share snippets across a team — directly matching the 'saved templates instead of retyping' part of the story. However, no evidence mentions variable/placeholder support (e.g., auto-filled name/date fields) or attaching files as part of a snippet/template. Missing for 10: variable/placeholder support in snippets, attachment bundling within snippets, independent hands-on confirmation of these specifics.

   • [claimed-docs] “Insert commonly-used phrases, paragraphs, or whole emails with a simple keyboard shortcut.”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can also share Snippets with your team, so your team can move faster, with consistent, up-to-date, and high-performing messaging.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Snippets can now be shared across your team, so you can all work faster with current and consistent messaging.”
   • [claimed-docs] “With Snippets, you can automate typing and push past this limit. Insert commonly-used phrases, paragraphs, or whole emails with a simple key…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullclaimed8/10

   Missive's canned responses/templates feature explicitly supports saving reusable replies, inserting them via keystrokes/command bar, sharing across teams, and customizing with a variables templating engine (recipient name, etc.), directly matching the story; MCP/API docs also confirm drafts resolve template variables like {{ user.name }}. missing for 10: explicit first-party documentation confirming attachments can be bundled/saved within a canned response/template, and independent hands-on corroboration of the templating workflow.

   • [claimed-docs] “Canned responses (or templates) are pre-written replies to common questions. Instead of typing the same answer repeatedly, you write it once…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can easily customize your responses or templates with dynamic content like your recipient's name by using our variables templating engin…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Drafts created outside the composer, by the assistant, by a rule, or through the API and MCP server, now resolve {{ user.name }} and {{ user…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Drafts created outside the composer, by the assistant, by a rule, or through the API and MCP server, now resolve {{ user.name }} and {{ user…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Offline

1. power-userRead, search, and write email offline, with changes syncing when I reconnect

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed5/10

   Superhuman's own docs repeatedly claim the app 'works perfectly offline' and even when the connection is terrible, suggesting core reading/composing functionality persists without a network. However, there is no explicit documentation of offline search behavior or how changes (sent drafts, read/archive actions) reconcile once reconnected, and no independent/hands-on corroboration of offline sync reliability. missing for 10: explicit description of offline search indexing, detail on conflict resolution/sync-on-reconnect mechanics, and third-party verification of offline behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman gives you a new way to work with Gmail. It works perfectly offline.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman gives you a new way to work with Gmail. It works perfectly offline. It works even when online, and your internet connection is te…”
   • [claimed-docs] “It works perfectly offline. It works even when online, and your internet connection is terrible.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses offline mode, local caching of email data, offline search, or sync-on-reconnect behavior; all citations concern MCP/AI integrations, team collaboration, and pricing features unrelated to offline reliability.

   ⚑ flag

1. ai-native userDo everything through the API that I can do in the UI

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialprobed5/10

   Superhuman exposes an official MCP server (email-mcp) letting AI assistants read, draft, send emails, summarize threads, and schedule meetings — a real but curated subset of UI actions — while probes show no public REST/OpenAPI spec (404s on openapi.json/llms.txt), meaning many UI capabilities (Auto Labels config, split inbox, Snippets, team features, Command palette, offline mode) have no documented API equivalent. Missing for 10: full OpenAPI/REST documentation, evidence of parity for non-email/calendar UI features (labels, snippets, team collaboration, command palette), and independent confirmation that MCP covers 1:1 UI functionality.

   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail MCP connects your inbox and calendar into Claude, ChatGPT, and other AI assistants—so you can summarize threads, draft and s…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect Claude or ChatGPT directly to your inbox to read, draft, and send emails with a single prompt — no copy-pasting required.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Connect all your Gmail and Outlook accounts, including work, personal, and side projects. Manage every inbox and calendar from one AI assist…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can now drive Superhuman Mail from Claude, ChatGPT, and your favorite AI tools. You can create powerful workflows that run across your i…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every send action requires your explicit approval, so you stay in control.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://superhuman.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://superhuman.com/openapi.json, https://superhuman.com/swagger.json, https://superhuman.com/api…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://superhuman.com/mail/features/email-mcp”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialprobed4/10

   Missive documents a REST API, webhooks, and an MCP server that can act on conversations, contacts, calendar, and drafts (missive-docs-15, missive-docs-31, missive-docs-45, missive-probe-4), suggesting broad but not explicitly complete UI/API parity — there is no vendor claim of 1:1 feature parity, and the OpenAPI spec could not be located via standard probes (missive-probe-3), making it hard to verify full API surface coverage against UI capabilities like snoozing, canned responses, or command-bar search (missive-docs-supp-1/3/4) which are not mentioned as API-exposed. Missing for 10: an explicit vendor statement of full UI/API parity, a discoverable OpenAPI/schema reference, and evidence that UI-only features (snoozing, canned responses, command bar actions) are also API-accessible.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Drafts created outside the composer, by the assistant, by a rule, or through the API and MCP server, now resolve {{ user.name }} and {{ user…”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”
   • [probe] “official MCP server documented at https://missiveapp.com/docs/ai/mcp/server”
   • [claimed-docs] “Snoozing temporarily hides a conversation until a specific time, then brings it back to your Inbox. Use it to defer emails you can't deal wi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Canned responses (or templates) are pre-written replies to common questions. Instead of typing the same answer repeatedly, you write it once…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. ai-native userExport all of my data in open formats and leave

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence of any data export capability, open-format export, or account portability/exit tooling in the evidence pack; the product is an email client layered on Gmail/Outlook but nothing documents exporting Superhuman-specific data (labels, snippets, agent configs) or facilitating leaving the platform. missing for 10: data export feature docs, open format (e.g. mbox/CSV/JSON) support, migration/exit tooling, any independent confirmation of portability.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   The evidence pack shows a REST API, webhooks, and MCP integrations for connecting external tools, but nothing documents a bulk data-export feature or open-format (mbox/CSV/JSON) export enabling a user to fully extract their mail, contacts, and conversation history and leave the platform. Probes for docs/API artifacts (llms.txt, openapi) also 404, further indicating no dedicated export-and-leave capability is documented.

   • [claimed-docs] “Use the Rest API to enrich Missive conversations with content from anywhere: commits from GitHub, transactions from Stripe,”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/docs.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

3. ai-native userRead the product's source under an open license

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman Mail is closed-source proprietary SaaS; no evidence of any open-licensed source availability. missing for 10: any mention of open-source license, public repository, or source availability.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive is a closed-source commercial email/collaboration SaaS; no evidence anywhere in the pack of an open-source license or public source repository, and probes for typical openness indicators (llms.txt, docs.md, openapi) all 404. No indication source code is available under any license.

   • [probe] “PROBE llms.txt: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/llms.txt”
   • [probe] “PROBE docs-md: HTTP 404 at https://missiveapp.com/docs.md”
   • [probe] “PROBE openapi: all candidate paths 404 (https://missiveapp.com/openapi.json, https://missiveapp.com/swagger.json, https://missiveapp.com/api…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userSelf-host the core product

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   Superhuman Mail is a proprietary SaaS email client; no evidence anywhere in the pack indicates a self-hostable version, on-prem deployment, or open-source core. All evidence describes a cloud-hosted product with API/MCP integrations, not self-hosting options.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   Missive is a cloud-hosted SaaS collaboration/email product; evidence shows data routes through Missive's own servers (missive-comm-1) and no docs mention any self-hosting/on-prem deployment option anywhere in the extensive feature/pricing/docs pack.

   • [community] “User asked if Gmail/Yahoo emails pass through Missive's servers. After being told TLS is used but data does route through Missive's servers,…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

1. ai-native userChoose where my data is stored (region/residency)

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions data residency, region selection, or storage location choices for Superhuman Mail; the axis applies to an email/data platform but no capability is documented.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack mentions data residency, region selection, or geographic storage location controls; features like IP restrictions and SSO relate to access control, not data storage location. Missing for 10: any mention of regional data hosting options, residency guarantees, or storage location configuration.

   ⚑ flag

2. ai-native userPrevent my data from being used to train AI models

   weight 3 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses data usage for AI model training, opt-out settings, or any privacy/data-retention policy statement — the evidence pack is entirely about feature functionality (AI drafting, labeling, MCP, calendar) with no mention of training-data controls. missing for 10: any privacy policy statement on AI training data usage, an opt-out or opt-in toggle for model training, or third-party confirmation of data handling practices.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack addresses any AI-training opt-out, data-usage policy for AI model training, or privacy controls specific to preventing training on user data. The pack covers MCP integrations, AI assistant features, and collaboration tools, but nothing about training data exclusion or a documented privacy commitment on this axis.

   ⚑ flag

3. ai-native userControl data retention and deletion

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   The evidence pack contains no mention of data retention settings, deletion controls, or data lifecycle policies for Superhuman Mail or its AI/MCP features—only feature descriptions, community sentiment, and unrelated probes. This is a fair privacy-posture question for an AI-native email product, but no evidence shows such controls exist.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence describes any data retention or deletion controls (e.g., configurable retention periods, right-to-delete, data purge options) for Missive or its AI/MCP features; the only related community note concerns data routing through servers via TLS, not retention/deletion policy.

   • [community] “User asked if Gmail/Yahoo emails pass through Missive's servers. After being told TLS is used but data does route through Missive's servers,…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

4. ai-native userOpt out of telemetry and usage tracking

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence pack item addresses telemetry, analytics opt-out, or usage-tracking controls; one community comment even notes Superhuman does not let users disable image-loading tracking, but this doesn't constitute a documented telemetry opt-out and can't establish 'disputed' since no vendor claim of an opt-out exists to contradict.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence pack item addresses telemetry/usage-tracking opt-out settings, privacy controls, or data-collection disclosures for Missive; the closest related content (comm-1) merely notes emails route through Missive's servers, which is unrelated to telemetry opt-out. This is an applicable axis for a SaaS product but no supporting evidence exists.

   ⚑ flag

Protection

1. switcherUse aliases or masked addresses so sign-ups and strangers never learn my real address

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack mentions email aliasing, masked/anonymous addresses, or any feature to hide a user's real address from sign-ups or strangers; Superhuman's documented features focus on AI triage, drafting, scheduling, and MCP integrations, not address privacy. Missing for 10: any mention of alias generation, masked email addresses, or privacy-relay/forwarding features.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence anywhere in the pack of email aliasing, masked/burner address generation, or similar identity-protection features for switchers; Missive is an email client/collaboration tool, and evidence covers team inboxes, MCP/AI integrations, and SSO, none of which address address masking.

   ⚑ flag

2. switcherThe client protects me from senders' tracking — blocking read pixels by default — and is transparent about what it does with my mail data

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No documentation claims Superhuman blocks tracking pixels by default or explains transparent data handling; in fact, community evidence explicitly states Superhuman does not let users disable images/tracking pixels, meaning senders' read-tracking is not blocked. No privacy-policy or data-handling transparency evidence is present either.

   • [community] “"Superhuman doesn't even let its own customers turn images off. So merely by using Superhuman, you are vulnerable to the exact same spying t…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence pack item mentions tracking-pixel blocking, image-loading proxying, or a documented privacy policy explaining what Missive does with mail data. The only related community evidence shows a user learning mail routes through Missive's servers and declining ('Thanks, but I pass'), which does not demonstrate a pixel-blocking feature or proactive transparency documentation.

   • [community] “User asked if Gmail/Yahoo emails pass through Missive's servers. After being told TLS is used but data does route through Missive's servers,…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Migration

1. switcherImport my complete mail history and contacts from my old provider or client

   weight 1 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack describes importing mail history or contacts from another provider/client; Superhuman only connects live Gmail/Outlook accounts, with no mention of migration, historical import, or contact import tools. Missing for 10: any documentation of import/migration functionality, historical mail transfer, or contact import from other providers.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   No evidence in the pack discusses importing mail history or contacts from another provider/client (e.g., Gmail/Outlook migration, IMAP sync, contact import tools). Evidence covers AI/MCP features, collaboration, search filters, and pricing but nothing about onboarding migration or historical data import.

   ⚑ flag

Search

1. power-userSearch is fast and precise — operators, filters, and ranked results across my full mail history

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail!disputedcontradicted4/10

   Superhuman markets 'Ask AI' as a way to get answers without keyword search (docs-4, docs-18, docs-26) but the evidence pack contains no documentation of actual search operators, filters, or ranked-results syntax across full mail history. A hands-on ex-user reports search was actually slow ('ten seconds' vs Gmail's instant) contradicting the 'fastest email' marketing, while another user reports search is 'blazing fast' (superhuman-comm-7 vs superhuman-comm-9), creating a genuine dispute rather than settled capability. missing for 10: documented search operator syntax, filter capabilities, ranked-results mechanism, and independent confirmation resolving the speed contradiction.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can now get rapid answers without having to remember senders, guess keywords, or comb through messages.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: _"where is the q2 offsite"_, _"when is my flight"_, _"where am I staying"_, and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Just ask: "where is the q2 offsite", "when is my flight", "where am I staying", and we'll immediately generate succinct answers.”
   • [community] “"I am an ex-user. A search through my email archive would regularly take ten seconds while gmail would do it instantly... my experience was …”
   • [community] “"My experience is that search and UI transitions are blazing fast. It crashes (rarely, but more than I like) and requires a restart. But I l…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed3/10

   Evidence confirms Missive has search filters (Type: Internal/External, Date range) and a command-bar search that can query across messages, contacts, or a specific label, but there is no documentation of search operators (from:, subject:, boolean, etc.), relevance ranking, or explicit assurance of full-history indexing/performance at scale. Missing for 10: documented search operator syntax, ranked-results behavior, evidence of speed/precision across large mail archives, and independent corroboration of search quality.

   • [claimed-docs] “The Type (Internal / External) and Date range filters in search no longer stay greyed out until you enter a search term.”
   • [claimed-docs] “The Type (Internal / External) and Date range filters in search no longer stay greyed out until you enter a search”
   • [claimed-docs] “Master the command bar: keyboard shortcuts and quick commands. You can use the following patterns to initiate a search: search searc sear se…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Shortcuts

1. power-userDo everything from the keyboard — comprehensive shortcuts and a command palette — in an interface fast enough to never make me wait

   weight 3 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail!disputedcontradicted6/10

   Superhuman documents a comprehensive Cmd+K command palette that surfaces every action and teaches shortcuts (docs-8, docs-34) plus fast reply shortcuts (docs-67), fitting the keyboard-power-user story. However, hands-on community reports are split: some users call it 'blazingly fast' (comm-9), while at least one ex-user reports search taking ten seconds vs instant in Gmail, directly contradicting the 'never wait' claim (comm-7), and another calls the UI just a 'cuter UI' around Gmail features with no real speed edge (comm-12). Missing for 10: a documented exhaustive keyboard-shortcut reference beyond the command palette, and independent benchmark data resolving the conflicting speed reports.

   • [claimed-docs] “Cmd+K brings up Superhuman Command, where you can instantly do any action — and also learn the shortcut for next time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Superhuman, one shortcut rules them all: Cmd+K. Cmd+K brings up Superhuman Command, where you can instantly do any action”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can reply to important messages faster with blazingly fast shortcuts and features like Instant Intro.”
   • [community] “"I am an ex-user. A search through my email archive would regularly take ten seconds while gmail would do it instantly... my experience was …”
   • [community] “"My experience is that search and UI transitions are blazing fast. It crashes (rarely, but more than I like) and requires a restart. But I l…”
   • [community] “"They essentially just teach you how to do things that gmail already lets you do, but put a cuter UI around it, and they force teach you con…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialcommunity6/10

   Missive documents a command bar (⌘/Ctrl+K) supporting search, snooze, and other quick commands, plus configurable swipe/keyboard shortcuts, which is direct evidence of keyboard-driven command palette functionality. However, there's no comprehensive shortcut list, no dedicated performance benchmarks, and community comments call the UI 'unintuitive' with 'design flaws' though also 'snappy' — mixed signal on speed/polish. Missing for 10: a full documented shortcut reference covering all major actions, explicit performance/latency claims, and independent hands-on confirmation of speed and keyboard completeness.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can also snooze by swiping a conversation (configurable in Settings > Preferences > Swipes), or by opening the command bar with ⌘/Ctrl +…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Master the command bar: keyboard shortcuts and quick commands. You can use the following patterns to initiate a search: search searc sear se…”
   • [community] “"We choose Missive for now because Missive feels like a proper snappy desktop app and is vastly cheaper ($15 vs $50 per user). Front feels l…”
   • [community] “"I fear that we will eventually switch to Front because Missive is unintuitive or (please someone build that) Gmail with collaboration featu…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Channels

1. team-leadThe same inbox also handles adjacent customer channels — SMS, WhatsApp, social, or live chat — beside email

   weight 1 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail—none0/10

   All evidence is about email (Gmail/Outlook) plus calendar integration; there is no mention of SMS, WhatsApp, social, or live chat channels being unified into the same inbox. The product is positioned strictly as an email/calendar client with AI and MCP integrations, not an omnichannel customer messaging platform.

   ⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed6/10

   Pricing docs explicitly list "Email, SMS, social accounts" as channels handled in the same inbox, and developer docs mention support for "custom channels" via API, confirming Missive unifies email with at least SMS and social channels. However, there is no explicit evidence of native WhatsApp or live-chat channel support, only generic 'custom channels' extensibility. Missing for 10: explicit WhatsApp integration, native live-chat channel, and independent confirmation of multi-channel unification in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Email, SMS, social accounts”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webhooks, and custom channels for full customization.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Missive developer tools: REST API, UI integrations, webh”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Routing

1. team-leadAssign conversations to teammates and route incoming mail with rules so ownership is explicit

   weight 2 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed4/10

   Superhuman offers team-collaboration signals like shared read statuses, reply indicators, and @mention team comments that help avoid duplicate work, plus shared snippets and team scheduling — but there is no evidence of formal conversation assignment or rule-based mail routing that establishes explicit ownership of a thread to a specific teammate. Missing for 10: dedicated 'assign to teammate' functionality, configurable routing/ownership rules for incoming mail, and any independent confirmation these team features work as advertised.

   • [claimed-docs] “Team Read Statuses: Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Reply Indicators: See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “let you @mention teammates, share live email views, and coordinate responses without external recipients seeing internal discussions”
   • [claimed-docs] “Snippets can now be shared across your team, so you can all work faster with current and consistent messaging.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullclaimed8/10

   Missive's docs explicitly describe assigning conversations to a team or specific person while maintaining visibility (missive-docs-6), shared inboxes/distribution lists (missive-docs-32, missive-docs-28), and automated routing via rules (up to 1000 rules per missive-docs-11/25/36), directly matching the story's ask for explicit ownership assignment and rule-based routing. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on corroboration of rule-based mail routing in practice, and more detail on how rule conditions/criteria are configured.

   • [claimed-docs] “Assign conversations to a team or specific person, while maintaining visibility. And jump in, if needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “From distribution lists to shared inboxes”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple people work out of the same inbox, without stepping on each other’s toes.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Shared inbox

1. team-leadWe can discuss an email in an internal side-thread — comments and @mentions beside the message — instead of forwarding copies around

   weight 2 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed8/10

   Superhuman's Team Comments feature explicitly supports @mentioning teammates, sharing live email views, and coordinating internal discussion without external recipients seeing it — directly matching the story's side-thread/comment use case, backed by Team Read Statuses and Reply Indicators for coordination. Missing for 10: independent/hands-on validation of the comment threading UX and details on comment persistence/notification workflow beyond vendor blog claims.

   • [claimed-docs] “let you @mention teammates, share live email views, and coordinate responses without external recipients seeing internal discussions”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Read Statuses: Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Reply Indicators: See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed5/10

   Missive's docs point to team collaboration around conversations — 'collaborate behind the scenes without changing your workflow', 'chat with your team' in groups/spaces, and 'compose emails together, get reviewed in real time' — which align with discussing a message internally rather than forwarding it. However, none of the evidence explicitly names a side-thread comment feature or @mention tagging mechanic attached to a message. missing for 10: explicit documentation of inline comment threads on conversations, explicit @mention functionality, and independent/hands-on confirmation that this replaces forwarding workflows.

   • [claimed-docs] “See what’s going on, know who’s doing what, and collaborate behind the scenes — without changing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “collaborate behind the scenes — without changing your workflow.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Chat with your team. In groups, dedicated team spaces, or one-on-one.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Chat with your team. In groups, dedicated team sp”
   • [claimed-docs] “Compose emails together, get reviewed in real time, and share attachments.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Assign conversations to a team or specific person, while maintaining visibility. And jump in, if needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. team-leadMy team works shared inboxes together — shared accounts or team channels where everyone sees the same conversation state

   weight 3 · round to Missive
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman ships several team-collaboration features that approximate shared inbox awareness — team read statuses, reply indicators to avoid double-replies, team comments for internal coordination without external visibility, and shared snippets/scheduling — giving a team-lead's group real-time visibility into who's handling what (superhuman-docs-49,50,51,55,56,71,72,73). However, this is built on individually-owned mailboxes with cross-visibility signals, not a true shared/group inbox or shared account model where the whole team works one conversation queue with assignment/ownership. Missing for 10: evidence of a genuine shared mailbox/account model, ticket-style assignment of conversations, and independent confirmation of how well these team signals work in practice.

   • [claimed-docs] “Team Read Statuses: Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Reply Indicators: See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Team Scheduling: See when your team is free, so you can schedule at the speed of thought.”
   • [claimed-docs] “let you @mention teammates, share live email views, and coordinate responses without external recipients seeing internal discussions”
   • [claimed-docs] “Snippets can now be shared across your team, so you can all work faster with current and consistent messaging.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Read statuses are now shared across your team, so anybody can follow up with full context.”
   • [claimed-docs] “See when your team is replying, so you can avoid double work and embarrassing collisions.”
   • [claimed-docs] “See when your team is free, so you can schedule at the speed of thought.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive✓fullcommunity9/10

   Missive's core product docs directly describe shared/team inboxes with multiple people working the same inbox without conflict, conversation assignment while maintaining visibility, distribution-list-to-shared-inbox mapping, per-action audit logging, and dedicated team spaces/channels — exactly the shared-conversation-state model the story describes (missive-docs-6, missive-docs-9, missive-docs-19, missive-docs-28, missive-docs-32, missive-docs-35, missive-docs-30/48). Independent community commentary corroborates it is used specifically for team email collaboration (missive-comm-3), and no evidence contradicts the shared-inbox mechanics themselves (complaints found are about general UX/bugs, not this capability). Missing for 10: a hands-on third-party account specifically confirming real-time shared conversation-state syncing across users (vs. general collaboration praise).

   • [claimed-docs] “Assign conversations to a team or specific person, while maintaining visibility. And jump in, if needed.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Every action within Missive is logged, so you know who did what, and when.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give each team a tailored space so they can seamlessly focus on their work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple people work out of the same inbox, without stepping on each other’s toes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “From distribution lists to shared inboxes”
   • [claimed-docs] “Have multiple people work out of the same inbox, without stepping on each other's toes.”
   • [claimed-docs] “See what’s going on, know who’s doing what, and collaborate behind the scenes — without changing your workflow.”
   • [community] “"I love Streak for singleplayer but prefer Missive or Front for collaboration."”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Followups

1. power-userSnooze conversations and set follow-up reminders that resurface a thread if nobody replies

   weight 2 · round drawn
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed6/10

   Superhuman documents an automated follow-up reminder system that drafts nudges and resurfaces threads needing a response when no reply has come ('automatically reminded to follow up—with a draft already written', 'check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each recipient is most likely to open it'), closely matching the reminder half of the story. However, there is no explicit mention of a 'snooze' feature to temporarily hide a conversation and resurface it later, which is a core part of the story. Missing for 10: explicit snooze/defer-conversation functionality, independent/hands-on confirmation of the follow-up reminder behavior.

   • [claimed-docs] “If your email needs a response, you’re automatically reminded to follow up—with a draft already written and ready to send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “If your email needs a response, you're automatically reminded to follow up—with a draft already written and ready to send.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Handle every follow-up with one prompt. Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each reci…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Superhuman Mail can check which emails have been read, draft all the nudges, and send when each recipient is most likely to open it.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”
   • [claimed-docs] “works inside Gmail and Outlook to label, declutter, draft, and remind automatically”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed6/10

   Missive's docs clearly document snoozing a conversation until a specific time so it resurfaces in the Inbox, including quick access via swipe or command bar (missive-docs-supp-1, missive-docs-supp-2). However, there is no evidence of a distinct 'follow-up reminder' feature that resurfaces a thread specifically if nobody replies (as opposed to a fixed snooze time) — the story's reply-tracking trigger is unevidenced. Missing for 10: documentation of a no-reply-triggered follow-up reminder mechanism, and any independent/hands-on confirmation of snooze/reminder reliability.

   • [claimed-docs] “Snoozing temporarily hides a conversation until a specific time, then brings it back to your Inbox. Use it to defer emails you can't deal wi…”
   • [claimed-docs] “You can also snooze by swiping a conversation (configurable in Settings > Preferences > Swipes), or by opening the command bar with ⌘/Ctrl +…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

Inbox structure

1. power-userSelect many conversations at once and archive, label, or mark them done in one stroke

   weight 1 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail~partialclaimed3/10

   Superhuman documents AI-driven Auto Archive and Auto Labels that batch-classify/archive whole categories of mail automatically, plus a command palette (Cmd+K) said to 'instantly do any action,' and split-inbox tabs to 'get through emails of the same type, at the same time' — all of which gesture at bulk triage outcomes, but none explicitly describe a manual multi-select-then-archive/label/mark-done workflow across many conversations. Missing for 10: explicit documentation or independent confirmation of manual multi-select bulk actions (checkbox/shift-click select many threads, then batch archive/label/mark-done in one keystroke).

   • [claimed-docs] “Turn on Auto Archive, and eliminate inbox clutter for good.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can focus on a specific topic — and get through emails of the same type, at the same time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Get an email assistant that automatically labels incoming emails, archives low-priority messages, drafts replies, and reminds you to follow …”
   • [claimed-docs] “In Superhuman, one shortcut rules them all: Cmd+K. Cmd+K brings up Superhuman Command, where you can instantly do any action”
   • [claimed-docs] “splitting your inbox allows you to divide your inbox into different areas of focus — based on the types of email you receive mos”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive—none0/10

   The evidence pack covers command bar search, snoozing, canned responses, MCP/AI assistant integration, and team collaboration features, but nothing documents multi-select bulk actions (archive/label/mark done across many conversations at once). Missing for 10: any docs or changelog entry describing bulk selection UI, keyboard multi-select, or batch archive/label/mark-done operations.

   • [claimed-docs] “You can also snooze by swiping a conversation (configurable in Settings > Preferences > Swipes), or by opening the command bar with ⌘/Ctrl +…”
   • [claimed-docs] “Master the command bar: keyboard shortcuts and quick commands. You can use the following patterns to initiate a search: search searc sear se…”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

2. power-userSplit my inbox into focused streams — important, team, newsletters, calendar invites — so triage happens in priority order, not arrival order

   weight 3 · round to Superhuman Mail
   Superhuman Mail✓fullclaimed8/10

   Superhuman explicitly documents 'split inbox' functionality with custom categories like VIP, Notifications, Calendar, and Team, plus custom Auto Labels that let users organize incoming mail into tabs by type so triage happens by focus area rather than arrival order. This is a first-party documented feature with a dedicated blog post, not just a vague claim. missing for 10: independent/hands-on confirmation of the split-inbox feature specifically (community evidence covers other aspects of Superhuman but not this feature) and detail on how priority ordering interacts with arrival order within each stream.

   • [claimed-docs] “in Superhuman Mail, you can design your own categories: like "VIP", "Notifications", "Calendar", or "Team".”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can design your own categories: like "VIP", "Notifications", "Calendar", or "Team".”
   • [claimed-docs] “splitting your inbox allows you to divide your inbox into different areas of focus — based on the types of email you receive mos”
   • [claimed-docs] “splitting your inbox allows you to divide your inbox into different areas of focus — based on the types of email you receive most”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts, and then split your inbox into tabs using these custom Auto Labels.”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can make your own Auto Labels with short AI prompts, and then split your inbox into tabs using these custom Auto Labels”
   • [claimed-docs] “you can focus on a specific topic — and get through emails of the same type, at the same time.”
   • [claimed-docs] “Custom Auto Labels let you categorize emails with your own AI prompts. (Available for our Business and Enterprise customers.)”

   proof ↗⚑ flag

   Missive~partialclaimed4/10

   Missive's docs mention rule automation (up to 1000 rules), team spaces, and shared/team inboxes, which could be used to organize conversations by category, but there is no explicit documentation of a dedicated 'streams' or 'focused inbox' feature that lets a user split a single inbox into priority-ordered views (important, team, newsletters, calendar invites) as described in the story. missing for 10: explicit inbox-view/stream creation feature, priority-based triage ordering, and evidence of calendar-invite handling as a distinct stream.

   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows”
   • [claimed-docs] “Automate your workflows Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Up to 1000 rules”
   • [claimed-docs] “Give each team a tailored space so they can seamlessly focus on their work.”
   • [claimed-docs] “From distribution lists to shared inboxes”
   • [claimed-docs] “Assign conversations to a team or specific person, while maintaining visibility. And jump in, if needed.”

   proof ↗⚑ flag