OpenAI 2026 hackathon

TMI Prompt Buster

It is a privacy layer between you and a cloud AI. It detects sensitive entities using SLM , replaces them with realistic and consistent fake values to maintain context and LLM efficacy

Solo project by Muhammad Baidul Abdul Samad · 0 likes · 0 comments

View the project on Devpost

Archive position — measured, not model output

0 likes on Devpost

2,263 of the 7,850 archived projects have more likes, and 5,587 share exactly 0 — so this project's #7,306 place in the like-ranked listing is a tie-break inside that group, not a ranking.

Projects (log scale)

1
10
100
1k
10k
05,587
11,758
2284
3–4132
5–975
10+14

Likes on Devpost. ▲ marks this project's group.

Show the figures
LikesProjectsShare of archive
05,58771.2%
11,75822.4%
22843.6%
3–41321.7%
5–9751.0%
10+140.2%
Devpost like counts for all 7,850 archived projects, captured when this archive was built.

User Stories BotA demo video on every pull request

Get a demo video on every new feature

GitHub App that watches your pull requests and records a narrated, captioned demo.
Save time on demo prep and make informed decisions faster with a video walkthrough of every new feature.

Executive Summary

The company appears to be a solo project named TMI Prompt Buster, self-described as a privacy layer between users and cloud AI systems. The author states it detects sensitive entities in prompts using GLiNER2, replaces them with fake but contextually consistent values, and aims to maintain LLM efficacy while protecting user data.

What changed: This is a hackathon submission, not a commercial product. It was built as a proof-of-concept for the OpenAI 2026 hackathon, with no evidence of prior development or market traction.

Single most important open question: Is there any evidence that this concept has been developed beyond a local demo, or whether it has moved from prototype to product?

Back to contents

What The Product Actually Is

The description states:

  • TMI Prompt Buster is a tool that sanitizes prompts before sending them to cloud AI services.
  • It uses GLiNER2 for zero-shot entity recognition.
  • It replaces sensitive entities with realistic fake values to preserve context and LLM performance.
  • It can run locally on CPU-only hardware.

Inference: The tool appears to be a prompt sanitization layer, likely intended for individuals or teams who want to avoid leaking personal or proprietary information when interacting with AI models.

Not evidenced: No details about how the replacement values are generated, whether it supports multiple LLMs, or if it integrates into existing workflows.

Back to contents

Positioning & Claim Evolution

The author states:

  • It is a privacy layer between users and cloud AI.
  • It detects sensitive entities using SLM (likely a typo for LLM).
  • It maintains context and LLM efficacy by replacing entities with realistic fake values.

Inference: The positioning is that of a privacy tool for AI prompt sanitization, aimed at protecting sensitive data in prompts.

Not evidenced: No evidence of prior branding, marketing, or customer-facing messaging beyond the hackathon submission. No claims about scalability, enterprise use cases, or competitive differentiation.

Back to contents

Target Customer & ICP

The description states:

  • It is a privacy layer for users interacting with cloud AI services.

Inference: The target appears to be individuals or small teams who are concerned about data leakage in prompt-based AI interactions.

Not evidenced: No evidence of specific personas, use cases, or customer segments. No indication of whether it targets developers, enterprises, or general consumers.

Back to contents

Business Model & Pricing Evidence

The description states:

  • The project is a local demo built for a hackathon.

Inference: There is no business model or pricing information provided. It appears to be a prototype with no monetization strategy described.

Not evidenced: No evidence of revenue streams, pricing tiers, subscriptions, or commercialization plans.

Back to contents

Technical & Delivery Signals

The description states:

  • Built with Flask and Python.
  • Uses GLiNER2 for zero-shot entity recognition.
  • Can run locally on CPU-only hardware.
  • It "sanitizes the prompt without losing context" and "forms back the answer accordingly."

Inference: The tool is technically feasible as a local prototype, but lacks integration capabilities or scalability.

Not evidenced: No evidence of API integrations, cloud deployment options, or performance benchmarks. No mention of how it handles complex prompts or multi-turn conversations.

Back to contents

Traction & Maturity Signals

The description states:

  • It was built for the OpenAI 2026 hackathon.
  • It can run locally and uses CPU-only hardware.
  • The next idea is an implicit leak buster, but not part of the current demo.

Inference: This is a prototype, not a product. No evidence of customers, usage, or market adoption.

Not evidenced: No evidence of revenue, ARR, headcount, partnerships, or user feedback. No indication of whether it has been tested in real-world scenarios.

Back to contents

Competitive Context

The description states:

  • It is a privacy layer for AI prompts.

Inference: The concept overlaps with tools that aim to protect data in LLM interactions, such as prompt sanitization or privacy-preserving AI frameworks.

Not evidenced: No evidence of competitors, market positioning, or differentiation from existing solutions. No mention of similar tools or platforms.

Back to contents

Open Questions & Risks

  • Solo development: The project is built by one person, which raises questions about scalability and long-term maintenance.
  • Prototype only: It is a hackathon demo with no evidence of product-market fit or commercial viability.
  • No traction or monetization: No evidence of users, revenue, or business model.
  • Unproven technical approach: The use of GLiNER2 for prompt sanitization is not validated in real-world applications.

Back to contents

Questions the description leaves open

  1. What is the current state of the prototype? Is it being used by anyone beyond the developer?
  2. How does it handle edge cases or complex prompts?
  3. Has there been any user feedback or testing with real-world data?
  4. Are there plans to commercialize this, and if so, what would that look like?
  5. What are the technical limitations of running on CPU-only hardware?
  6. Is there a roadmap beyond the current demo?

Back to contents

Overall Assessment

Not evidenced: No evidence of a viable business, traction, or market opportunity. The project is described as a hackathon prototype with no commercialization plan.

Inference: At this stage, it is not a viable investment or partnership target. It may be an early-stage idea worth exploring if the founder intends to build out a product, but there is no evidence of progress beyond the demo.

Back to contents

User Stories BotA demo video on every pull request

Get a demo video on every new feature

GitHub App that watches your pull requests and records a narrated, captioned demo.
Save time on demo prep and make informed decisions faster with a video walkthrough of every new feature.

Source

Submitted to the OpenAI 2026 hackathon on Devpost. Project home on Devpost. Back to the full gallery on Devpost.

This competitive analysis was produced by top-founders.com (opens in a new tab)

Generated by a language model from this project's public Devpost page — its tagline, the author's own write-up and any built-with tags listed there — as captured in August 2026. Short quotations are the author's words. It is an opinion on the idea as a business, not on the people behind it, and it reflects the description as published then. If the project has moved on, request a correction below. The analysis is not independent research and contains no verified traction, revenue or customer data.

An independent guide by KFG International LLC — not affiliated with, endorsed by, or connected to Devpost or OpenAI.

Are you the author of this project? Request removal or a correction (support@kfginternational.com). Requests from authors are acted on within 48 hours, and in any case within seven days. Privacy notice.