Hi Supabase builders — I’m the maker of InlinerAPI.
If you customize invitation, confirmation or recovery emails, the free no-signup preview checks rendered HTML against expected instructions, required sections and CTA host/path rules: https://inlinerapi.netlify.app/requirements
Please use synthetic values after template placeholders are resolved, with a separate expected rule from your current business requirements. Would you try one current change and share the rule and actual result? If useful repeatedly, what would determine whether you pay for these checks?
These checks cover static content. They do not validate Auth tokens, follow redirects, test delivery or reproduce inbox clients. Thank you.
The user introduces InlinerAPI, a tool for checking static content in customized authentication emails. They seek feedback on its utility and potential willingness to pay for such checks. Another user finds it potentially useful for catching template issues but requests real-world examples to better understand its effectiveness.
This looks useful for catching template issues before deploying changes, especially broken links or missing instructions in auth emails. It would be helpful to see a few real-world examples of the checks catching problems that are easy to miss during manual testing. Herrick
Thanks, Herrick. I don't have a verified customer-use case to share yet; the published examples use synthetic data rather than production incidents.
On the most recent auth-email change you worked on, which instruction or CTA destination, if any, still needed manual checking after your existing tests? If relevant, you can model one rule with dummy values in the no-signup preview and share the actual result: https://inlinerapi.netlify.app/requirements
These checks inspect rendered HTML; they don't validate tokens, follow redirects, test delivery or reproduce inbox appearance.