Editorial Standards

AI Productivity Hub is published by the AI Productivity Hub Editorial Team, part of the Moonsmoke Network. Here's how we work.

Research Process

Hands-on use first. Documentation and vendor claims second. Public user reviews third. We sign up for the tools we cover and run real productivity tasks through them — writing, scheduling, meeting notes, project tracking — before we form an opinion. We only fall back to documentation or marketing claims when hands-on testing isn't possible, and we say so when that's the case.

Content Production

AI-assisted research and drafting. Human review and editing before publication. Fact-checking against primary sources. We use AI as a research and drafting aid, but every article passes through a human editor. We verify pricing, feature lists, and vendor claims against the tool's own documentation and our hands-on testing before publishing.

Review Methodology

We evaluate AI productivity tools on five dimensions: actual usefulness on real tasks, pricing transparency, ease of setup, integration with the tools you probably already use, and how well marketing promises line up with what the product actually does. We don't use a proprietary scoring system — we just tell you where each tool wins and where it falls short.

Affiliate Disclosure

We earn commissions on some links. See our affiliate disclosure for details. We only link to products we recommend. Affiliate relationships never influence a recommendation — if a tool is mediocre, we say so, even when it has a generous payout.

Update Cadence

We re-review tools on a 90-day rolling schedule. Pricing and feature changes trigger immediate updates. When a vendor kills a feature, raises a price, or pivots the product, we update the relevant posts as soon as we notice — we don't wait for the next review cycle.

Corrections Policy

Found an error? Contact us. We correct errors and note the update date at the top of any edited post. Material corrections are flagged; minor copy edits are not.