Tell it what you are running and what you are running it for. It scores how well the stack actually serves that purpose, finds the compounds duplicating each other, reads your doses, and lays out when each one should be placed in the day.
Every compound in the database is mapped to the goals it plausibly serves, so the tool can show you which of your stated goals nothing in your stack actually covers, and which compounds are serving no goal you listed at all. This single check, run explicitly rather than assumed, is usually where the biggest problem with a stack turns out to be. Cross-reference reconstitution math for anything you add against the Reconstitution Engine.
Compounds sharing a receptor class are flagged as redundant with an explanation of why doubling up does not double the effect, real synergistic pairings are called out specifically, and outright conflicts are surfaced too, including MK-677 occupying the same ghrelin receptor as an injectable secretagogue for roughly 24 hours, and exogenous GH suppressing the same pituitary that secretagogues are trying to stimulate.
The tool totals your weekly injection count, identifies which compounds are routinely drawn into the same syringe to reduce that count, and consolidates monitoring into a single deduplicated blood panel covering the whole stack rather than one per compound. If GLP-1 weight loss and a GH axis compound are both in play, check the interaction against the GLP-1 Weight-Loss Predictor to see the lean-mass side of that same trade-off.
Not "what should I take". It checks whether the stack you already have does what you built it for, or whether you are just running compounds. You state your goals, and the engine finds goals nothing in your stack covers, and compounds in your stack serving no goal you listed, which is the check almost nobody runs on their own protocol.
From six weighted sub-scores shown individually rather than as a black box: goal coverage, non-redundancy, synergy, evidence quality, dosing, and executability. Goal coverage carries the most weight, and low goal coverage or nonsensical dosing caps the total score outright, so a stack cannot score well purely on having credible-looking compounds in it.
GLP-1 agonists delay gastric emptying substantially, which is part of how they suppress appetite. GH secretagogues need a genuinely fasted state because insulin directly antagonises growth hormone. The usual "two hours after eating" guidance stops describing a fasted state once a GLP-1 is in the picture, since food is still leaving the stomach well past that point, so the GH side quietly underperforms and reads as the compound not working.
No. It reads whatever dose you enter against the range commonly discussed for that compound and flags outliers in either direction, including likely unit mix-ups. It does not generate a starting dose, a reconstitution volume or injection instructions for anything in the database.
Redundancy is two compounds acting on the same receptor class, such as two GHRPs competing for the same ghrelin receptor rather than producing two separate pulses. Synergy is two different receptors or pathways working toward the same outcome, such as a GHRH analog paired with a ghrelin agonist, which genuinely produces a larger pulse than either alone. The tool distinguishes the two rather than treating every pairing as additive.
