Haven't looked at the actual product, but my personal advice to this team is not to use terms like `Next-Gen` and `Modern` as their taglines. It turns of real significant buyers from consideration IMHO.

When I hear "next-gen" and "modern" I hear "we don't have a real value proposition except 'its not the incumbent thing'".

The landing page does a very poor job of explaining how this product differs from established platforms like GitLab, Gitea, or Codeberg, all of which are open source.

Also, I strongly doubt its GitHub Actions compatibility. Even an established and well-maintained project like Act has known compatibility issues, and GitHub's official images are extremely resource-intensive to build.

On first glance, it just looks (the features) like a clone of GitHub. Why not provide us the differentiators, what problems it solves (especially for engineering teams with agentic labor) that GitHub doesn't?

> Some Trylle features use artificial intelligence and machine learning, and several of them rely on third-party AI providers (acting as our sub-processors) to operate. When you or a member of your organization invokes one of these features, the relevant context — which may include your source code, diffs, file contents, issues, pull requests, commit messages, and related repository content and metadata — may be sent to and processed by these third-party providers in order to generate a response. This processing happens at your direction: it occurs only when you or your organization triggers the feature, and it is scoped to the repositories and resources that feature is authorized to access.

> You can control whether these features are enabled through your organization and repository settings (for example, Settings → AI), and disabling a feature stops the associated processing going forward.

This playbook feels so familiar.

Sorry, but you need to have at least some info about the humans involved before I would even consider using this.