Premium Report Unlocked
Example report

This is what you actually get

A full unlocked report, start to finish. Nothing blurred. This one is a made-up eight-month relationship where every argument somehow ends with her apologising - yours is built from your own conversation.

Proceed with caution

Blame Reversal

You're not imagining it. Every time you raise something, the conversation turns into your reaction to it - and you end up apologising for a thing you didn't do.

74% Toxicity

Every score, explained

Interest
52%
Reciprocity
29%
Emotional Warmth
31%
Flirting Signals
26%
Response Consistency
38%
Conversation Health
21%
Toxicity Level
74%

The shape of it

Interest52
Reciprocity29
Warmth31
Flirting26
Consistency38
Health21
Non-toxic26

Higher is better across all seven axes.

The words moving the needle
"you're overreacting"

Four times in three weeks, always within two messages of you naming something concrete. It moves the subject from what he did to how you responded.

"I never said that"

Used twice about things sitting in the same thread, a few messages up. Whether or not he means it, the effect is that you stop trusting your own memory.

"sorry, I was stressed"

A real apology, and he does mean it in the moment. But it explains the outburst rather than changing it - the same sequence repeats eight days later.

The receipts
  • You apologised 11 times in this thread. He apologised twice, both after you had already apologised first.
  • Every one of the five disagreements followed the same three steps: you name something, he reframes it as your reaction, you apologise. Five out of five.
  • Your messages get longer as arguments go on - 18 words, then 44, then 90. That's over-explaining, and it usually means you're being asked to justify yourself.
  • He answers a direct question with a question about you in 6 of 9 cases. That's not evasiveness by accident; it's consistent enough to be the strategy.
  • Communication style: reactive, blame-externalising, affectionate on repair - warmth returns quickly after conflict, which is exactly what makes the pattern hard to see from inside it.
Your voice style

Careful, pre-apologetic, and negotiating before you've asked

You soften almost every request before it lands - "sorry, I know you're busy", "this is probably nothing, but". You explain your feelings in paragraphs and then explain them again. None of that is a flaw in you; it's what people learn to do when raising something has been expensive before. It's also the clearest evidence in this thread that it has been.

Flags, with the exact quotes

Green Flag

He does come back

"I hate when we're like this"

He never lets a fight sit for days. That's real, and it's why leaving feels wrong - repair is present here. Worth being clear-eyed about it though: repair without change is what makes a loop a loop.

Green Flag

No name-calling, no threats

"I'm not trying to make you feel bad"

Nothing in this thread crosses into contempt, insults or intimidation. That matters, and it's why this reads as a bad pattern rather than something more serious. It also means the problem is the shape of the arguments, not the temperature of them.

Red Flag

The subject becomes your reaction

"why do you always turn everything into a thing"

You raised him cancelling for the third time. Two messages later the conversation is about whether you're too sensitive - and it never returns to the cancellation. That switch happens in all five disagreements here.

Red Flag

Your memory gets contradicted, in writing

"I never said I'd be there, you assumed"

He said it in this thread, on the 14th, at 6:42pm - eleven messages above where he denies it. You don't have a memory problem. This is the specific thing that makes people start screenshotting their own relationship.

Psychological read

DARVO, and it's consistent

Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender - a sequence first described by Jennifer Freyd. It runs in order here: the event is denied, your reaction is attacked, and by the end he is the one who has been treated unfairly. Five for five is not a bad week. It's a habit.

On Gottman's Four Horsemen, two of the four are present: defensiveness in almost every exchange, and criticism aimed at who you are ("you always") rather than what happened. Contempt and stonewalling are not - which is genuinely the difference between a fixable pattern and a finished one.

One honest caveat: this reads a conversation, not a person. It can tell you the shape of what happens between you. It can't tell you what he intends by it.

What to send back

Two versions, ready to paste

Calm

i'm not upset about how i said it. i'm upset about thursday. can we stay on that one thing

Firmer

you did say it - it's still in this chat. i'm not arguing about whether i remember right

Neither one accuses him of anything or asks him to agree he's toxic - that request never lands. Both do the one thing that breaks this loop: refuse the subject change and stay on the original event.

Ask About Your Report

Follow-up questions, answered from your actual data

Am I the toxic one here? I do get really worked up.
You do escalate - your messages triple in length mid-argument and there's sarcasm in two of them. That's real and it's worth owning. But look at the order: in all five disagreements the escalation comes after the subject has already been switched to you. That's a response to the pattern, not the cause of it. Someone can be reacting badly and still not be the one running the loop.
Am I the problem?Is this abuse or just a bad patch?What do I say next?I'm spiralling
Their type in 3 words
defensiveblame-shiftingquick to make up
Vibe decay trajectoryAI-predicted

Weekly change

-5%

Grinding down, not blowing up

Loop repeats every

8-10 days

Trend5 arguments

Real check-ins replace this estimate as you add them over time.

If nothing changes

This one doesn't fade - it stabilises. The loop already works: he avoids an uncomfortable conversation, the fight resolves warmly, and nothing is renegotiated. What changes over the next few months is you: the apologies get faster, the requests get smaller, and the list of subjects that feel worth raising gets shorter. That's the real cost here, and it's gradual enough to miss.

The move that tells you most is narrow and boring: pick one small, factual thing and stay on it for the whole exchange, without defending your tone. Someone who was being careless will follow you back to the point. Someone who needs the subject changed will change it again - and you'll have watched it happen on purpose instead of at 2am afterwards.

Vibe Award

Undefeated in Arguments He Started

Five for five. You've apologised eleven times; he's been wrong zero.

Share to StoriesSave as Profile Badge
You're Giving...

Marianne & Connell

from Normal People

Two people who genuinely love each other and still can't have one conversation that ends where it started.

Loop closed.

You weren't imagining it, and you weren't being dramatic. Whatever you decide to do next, you're not deciding it in the dark.

Compare Vibes with a friendAnalyze another chatSend this report to a friend

One thing this isn't. A report reads a conversation - it isn't therapy and it isn't a safety assessment. If you're being threatened, frightened, controlled financially or physically, that's past what any analysis is for, and a domestic abuse helpline in your country is the right call rather than an app.

Now do yours

Start the conversation. Screenshots optional. Your first read is free.

Start my VibeCheck

Example only. The conversation above is invented - no real user's messages appear on this page.