This is an interesting evolution — moving from a whiteboard-style canvas to a more structured "visual folder" feels like a natural correction against prompt/result sprawl.

I like the idea of “Visual Context Engineering” — giving AI spatially organized cues instead of dumping everything in a flat thread. It reminds me of how humans use folders, tabs, or even physical desks to manage mental context. The ability to highlight what matters and collapse the rest seems like a real productivity multiplier.

One thought: how does Kuse handle collaboration? The folder metaphor works great for solo workflows, but I wonder if multiple users dropping in files, highlighting, and prompting would cause the same chaos you tried to solve in 1.0. Maybe the "visual folder" could extend into a shared canvas where provenance (who did what, and why) stays transparent.

Overall, this looks like a thoughtful iteration. Curious to see if the visual folder model becomes a general UX pattern for AI tools, the way "chat thread" did in the last wave.

Very cool visual context product, looking forward to version 2.0

Really love the whole Kuse 2.0 concept of leaving a “success point” behind. Also excited to see how this idea of “visual context engineering” plays out. super coooool!

I’d love to understand more about how Kuse 2.0 differentiates itself from typical AI-powered tools that also organize content visually. The shift from the clutter of cards in 1.0 to a pared-down canvas focusing only on sources and key AI-generated outputs sounds promising—but how does this work in practice?

Two key questions: 1.When you say “only your sources + significant AI‑generated results live on the canvas now,” what criteria define “significant”? Is this determined by user feedback, an internal model, or do users manually flag outputs? 2.How customizable is the layout or structure of the canvas? Can users group, reorder, or annotate sections to reflect their own workflow or context?

Overall, I’m impressed with the evolution from messy inputs to structured deliverables—but I’d love clarity on how much control users retain over the final presentation.

So the tool itself is decent, but who came up with this pricing model? A 50-page PDF costs 50 credits, and a 1000-page novel also costs... 50 credits? That makes zero sense. It feels like I'm being penalized for having normal-sized documents. This is a great deal if you're uploading massive files, but a pretty raw deal for the rest of us. Fix the tiered pricing, please.

like the folder idea. people should have an AI folder like this...