- 65emails sent after a person's yes
- 21people the emails went to
- 10meetings put on the calendar
- 7 weeksAug 20 to Oct 8, 2026
A load testing firm where the founder still sells#
PFLB (pflb.us) tests how software holds up under load: a bank’s app before a launch, a retailer’s checkout before a sale. Its buyers are US companies, and each sale is a project with its own scope and price.
The sale runs the same way each time:
- 1
The inquiry.
A head of engineering fills in the form on pflb.us or writes an email.
- 2
The scoping call.
Thirty minutes on the system, the traffic it must hold and the date it must hold it by.
- 3
The estimate.
PFLB's engineers size the work in weeks and dollars.
- 4
The SOW.
The scope, the price and the milestones on PFLB's template.
- 5
The client's terms.
The client sends its own agreement, and someone at PFLB reads it clause by clause.
- 6
Milestone invoices.
PFLB bills at each milestone the SOW names.
The founder carried all six.
Before: the founder answered inquiries between client work#
Yuri Kovalov founded PFLB and still sells for it. An inquiry that came in at 10 AM got its answer when he came out of a client meeting. The recap of a scoping call sat in his notes until he had a free hour. A client’s agreement meant a careful read of thirty pages, or a lawyer’s bill.
Each of those steps waited for the same person. Yuri built Tommos to run PFLB’s own sale, and PFLB was its first workspace.
What the tommos do on PFLB's deals#
The cards below are real cards from PFLB’s workspace, as they were sent. Names, companies, links and dates are replaced with [roles]; the rest is word for word.
Tommo SDR: the first reply
A visitor filled in PFLB’s quote form and asked for performance tests of a new model of data-centre cooling units. Tommo SDR filed this card about 80 seconds after the form arrived. A person pressed Send about 70 minutes later.
Subject: Re: Performance testing for [the units]
Hi [first name],
The honest answer first: PFLB does performance and load testing of software, applications, APIs and the systems behind them. We do not test physical equipment, so airflow, thermal or electrical testing of [the units] sits outside what we can do. Better to say that now than to book a call for it.
There is one case where we would be the right team: if the work is about the control, monitoring or BMS software around those units, for example data collection, dashboards or integrations under load. That we test.
Which of the two is it?
If it is the software side, I have 15 minutes free today at 14:00 or 16:00 UK time, or tomorrow at 10:00: [booking link]. A short email works just as well.
At PFLB, the draft stood on the card about 2 minutes after a real form inquiry (median of the 2 real inquiries in the period). A pressed Send left PFLB’s Gmail a median of 0.9 minutes later (65 emails). When the lead picks a time, Tommo SDR puts the call on the calendar with a Meet link: 7 meetings with 3 people so far.
Tommo Closer: the recap
A first call with a fintech’s tech lead and PFLB’s engineer. When the deal was opened, Tommo Closer filed this recap five minutes later. A person pressed Send eleven minutes after that.
Subject: After today's call: what [our engineer] needs to price your load testing project
Hi [first name],
Good to finally get that call done today, and thank you for your patience through all the rescheduling.
Here is what I took away. You need a turnkey load testing project now, and just as importantly a setup your own team can re-run later: not a one-off exercise but a capability that stays with you. That shapes what we build. At the end of the project the JMeter scripts and full platform access are yours, so running the tests again is something your team does on its own, not a new engagement. You will take the decision together with your CTO, and I will keep the estimate shaped to the constraints you described.
To put a number on it, [our engineer] needs this from you:
• Your stack behind the flows to be tested: languages, frameworks, databases, queues, and anything that is not plain HTTP (gRPC, Kafka, a payment gateway, an external provider).
• The list of use cases to cover: the business transactions that matter, step by step.
• The load you want proven: peak transactions or users per hour, and how quickly the ramp gets there.
• The environment we would test against: staging or production, and how close it is to production in size.
• Test data and test accounts: what already exists, what we would have to generate or mask.
• Who on your side runs the repeat tests afterwards, and whether they work inside CI/CD today.
Attached is the document you requested about our platform: a comparison of PFLB SaaS vs. on-premises models.
As you said on the call, none of this needs an NDA on your side, so you can simply reply here. If you would rather have one in place first, tell me and I will send it the same day.
If your answers reach me by Thursday, I will have the estimate with you within three working days of them, and the SOW or invoice follows straight after that.
Tommo Closer drafted 10 of PFLB’s 20 recap cards and Tommo SDR the other 10. It also put 3 more meetings on the calendar, with 3 people.
Tommo Legal: one clause from its review
A letter agreement for a subcontract through a partner, checked against PFLB’s own time-and-materials template. The card listed nine places where the letter departs from the template, each with the clause, PFLB’s position and why it matters. A person decided it about five hours later, the next morning. One of the nine is below.
The letter says: “[The partner] pays PFLB in US dollars within ten business days of receiving the End Client's payment for the phase or cycle the invoiced hours belong to.”
Our position: T&M template v2: invoices payable net 30 under MSA Section 6, late payment under Section 6.4.
Why it matters: This is pay-when-paid with no late-payment term and no long-stop date, so if the End Client pays late or never pays, PFLB carries that for work already done.
One of nine clauses on the card. Research, not legal advice.
On its first PFLB paper, a letter agreement on one deal, Tommo Legal found 9 departures. A person read all 9 and accepted all 9.
PFLB connected Mercury on Oct 6, 2026; next, invoices go out from a card, on the Sign plan. A tommo asks to send one kind of email on its own after twelve approvals in a row with nothing to fix. The recap is the Close plan; the paper is Sign.
What Tommo SDR does · What Tommo Closer does · What Tommo Legal does
PFLB's numbers, Aug 20 to Oct 8, 2026#
Read from PFLB’s workspace on Oct 8, 2026, for Aug 20 to Oct 8, 2026. PFLB is a small firm with real leads, so the count stands next to each number. Test records are left out.
| What | Number | Count it rests on | What it measures |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tommo runs | 420 | on 34 people | Each time a tommo read a record and did its work: Tommo SDR 313 runs on 33 people, Tommo Closer 90 on 6, Tommo Legal 17 on 1 deal |
| Cards drafted | 262 | in seven weeks | Drafts a tommo put on a card for a person to decide: emails, bookings, record changes |
| Emails sent after a yes | 65 | to 21 people | Emails that left PFLB's Gmail after a person pressed Send; 0 sent on their own |
| Yes to email sent | 0.9 min, median | of 65 emails | From a person's press to the email leaving |
| Form inquiry to a draft on the card | 2 min, median | of 2 real inquiries (0.1 min on all 9 submissions) | From the form on pflb.us to Tommo SDR's reply waiting on the card |
| Inbound email to Tommo at work | 1 min, median | on 11 of 13 inbound emails since Sep 26, 2026 | From an email arriving to Tommo starting on that person |
| Meetings put on the calendar | 10 | Tommo SDR 7, with 3 people; Tommo Closer 3, with 3 people | Calls a tommo booked from times it offered |
| Recap cards drafted | 20 | 7 sent | Recaps of a call, Tommo Closer 10, Tommo SDR 10 |
| Paper read by Tommo Legal | 1 | 9 departures found, all 9 accepted by a person | A letter agreement read clause by clause against PFLB's positions |
| Mercury | connected | on Oct 6, 2026 | Next: invoices from a card, on the Sign plan |
Each number comes from PFLB’s own record in Tommos.
What changed for Yuri#
We didn’t build Tommos to sell it. We built it because our own sale kept waiting on me: the reply, the recap, the SOW, the client’s MSA. Today the tommos do that work and I decide. If it runs a services company’s sale, it can run yours.
Yuri Kovalov, founder of PFLB and TommosQuestions about PFLB and Tommos#
- Is PFLB a real company?
- Yes. PFLB (pflb.us) is a performance and load testing firm that sells projects to US clients, and Tommos began there. Its founder, Yuri Kovalov, built Tommos to run PFLB's own sale, and the tommos have worked PFLB's leads since Aug 20, 2026: 420 runs on 34 people by Oct 8, 2026.
- Which plan does PFLB's work need?
- Sign, $899 a month: Tommo SDR, Tommo Closer and Tommo Legal, and invoices through Mercury. A firm that wants the reply and the call starts on Book, $299 a month. No seats on any plan.
- Do the tommos send email on their own at PFLB?
- No, by PFLB's choice. All 65 emails from Aug 20 to Oct 8, 2026 left after a person pressed Send. A tommo asks to send one kind of email on its own after twelve clean approvals in a row; you switch it on per form, and off the same way.
- How fast does Tommo answer an inquiry at PFLB?
- Since Sep 26, 2026, Tommo starts on an inbound email in a median of 1 minute (on 11 of 13). On the form, the reply stood on a card a median of 2 minutes after a real inquiry (2 real inquiries). The rest is the time a person takes to press Send.
- Can I see it on my own inquiries?
- Yes. Sign in with Google, and Tommo reads the last 30 days of your email and meetings and opens a record for each conversation still open, up to 50. 14 days of everything, no card.