Tell us what to build next.
Juno is built on user feedback. The peptide field changes fast, the literature gets denser every month, and the workflows that matter on a Tuesday morning are workflows we’ve only learned about because users wrote in. Editorial corrections ship fast. Feature requests shape the roadmap. AI feedback tunes the prompts.
We read every message at hello@juno.coach.
What to send
Editorial correction
A citation looks stale, an evidence tier doesn't match the literature, a peptide entry is missing context, or a dose range is off. Editorial corrections ship fast — usually within a day of confirmation.
Email editorial →Calculator edge case
The reconstitution math hit a weird input, the syringe visualization looked off, or a warning didn't fire when it should have. Include the inputs you used so we can reproduce it.
Report a calc issue →AI answer didn't land
An AI surface (Stack Chat, Regimen Designer, lab analysis, peptide Q&A) gave an answer that was wrong, evasive, or missed your context. Paste the prompt and the response — we use these to tune the system prompts and the retrieval layer.
Send AI feedback →Feature request
Something you want Juno to do that it doesn't yet. Mobile reminders, a specific wearable integration, a new lab panel, a guide we haven't written. Tell us the workflow you're trying to support, not just the feature name.
Suggest a feature →Bug report
Something broke. A page wouldn't load, an action failed silently, a chart rendered wrong. Include the browser / device if it's a UI issue, and roughly when it happened so we can match it to logs.
Report a bug →
Working with researchers or clinicians?
If you’re part of an academic group, a regulatory body, or a clinical organization that wants to talk methodology, dataset access, or collaboration on the opt-in outcomes registry, that goes to the same inbox. Mark the subject “Research collaboration” so it gets routed correctly.
Email research collaboration →