Looking for 5 n8n builders to pressure test an idea around productized automations

Feedback
,
1

Hey everyone,

I’ve been building automations internally for a company, mostly around marketing and ops: inquiry reports, competitor/social reports, lead follow-ups, social listening, reporting workflows, that kind of thing.

One thing I keep noticing is that businesses usually don’t care about the workflow itself.

They care about the result.

For example:

  • invoice data extracted into Google Sheets

  • leads enriched and routed

  • inquiries summarized every morning

  • weekly reports generated automatically

  • CRM data cleaned up

  • follow-ups triggered without someone doing it manually

So I’m testing an idea called Nexus.

The simple version:

devs package a repeatable automation use case
the buyer gets the outcome
the platform handles setup flow, buyer inputs, runs, monitoring and delivery
the dev still defines the logic, required credentials, output and support terms
custom setup still exists where needed

I’m not trying to build another template marketplace where someone downloads a workflow and has to figure it out.

The idea is closer to:

“buy the result, not the workflow”

I’m looking for 5 n8n / automation builders to pressure test the dev side before I open it wider.

Main things I’m trying to understand:

  1. Would you ever list a repeatable automation package like this?

  2. What would stop you?

  3. What support/ownership model would feel fair?

  4. How should payouts work for devs?

  5. What would make this useless or too risky?

Early builders would get first dashboard access, founding dev status, and priority listing when the marketplace opens.

If you build client workflows, n8n automations, Make/Zapier workflows, AI agents, or custom scripts and want to help shape the dev side, here’s the early dev page:

https://nexus-ai.software/pages/developers/waitlist.html

Also happy to hear criticism directly in the comments. I’m mainly trying to learn from people who actually build this stuff.

1 Like
2

The “buy the result, not the workflow” direction is compelling, but I think the developer contract will matter more than the workflow packaging.

We are currently productizing a small set of local-business workflows, and the hardest questions are:

  1. Where does the reusable package end? The platform should distinguish the maintained core workflow from customer-specific mapping, credentials, consent rules, and provider configuration.
  2. Who owns production failures? Buyers need a visible boundary between workflow defects, third-party outages, bad source data, and configuration errors.
  3. How are credentials handled? I would only list packages where credentials remain customer-owned and the builder does not receive reusable secrets.
  4. What is the update contract? A package needs a version, migration notes, supported integrations, and a defined support period.
  5. How is the outcome verified? “Invoice rows written successfully” is measurable. “More leads” or “more revenue” is not a safe delivery promise.

For payouts, I would prefer a clear split between:

  • a one-time license or setup fee,
  • optional recurring monitoring/support,
  • and separately priced custom implementation.

The main risk is that a standardized listing quietly becomes unlimited custom support. A structured intake schema, test fixtures, acceptance checks, execution logs, and an explicit responsibility matrix would make the model much more credible.

I would be interested in pressure-testing the developer side, particularly around local-business follow-up workflows and the boundary between reusable assets and customer-specific deployment.

1 Like
3

Keep in mind u need a commercial license for this. :grin:

4

this is exactly the kind of feedback i was hoping for

i agree with you, the dev contract / responsibility layer is probably more important than the marketplace UI itself

the way i’m thinking about it now is:

reusable package = maintained core workflow, versioned logic, expected inputs, supported integrations, test cases, output contract

customer-specific layer = credentials, field mapping, provider config, consent rules, business rules, edge cases

and then the responsibility matrix has to be visible before purchase, not hidden after something breaks

also agree on outcome verification. “invoice rows written successfully” or “lead enriched and routed” is much safer than promising revenue or growth

the risk of “standardized package turns into unlimited custom support” is probably the biggest thing to design around, so the intake schema, acceptance checks, logs and support boundaries make a lot of sense

would definitely like to pressure test this with you, especially around local-business follow-up workflows

also happy to continue the discussion here because this is the exact level the model needs to be designed at