Software Audit & Code Review Services
You or an AI tool built something, and you don’t know if it’s safe to put in front of real users. We read the actual code and tell you the truth before you spend more money.
Is this you?
- You built an MVP with Lovable, Bolt, v0 or Claude and it looks finished, but you are not sure it is safe
- A developer told you the app needs a rewrite, and you want a second opinion before agreeing
- You inherited a codebase from a freelancer or agency and do not know what you are actually looking at
- You want to add real features but you are worried the foundation will not hold
How we solve it
A link, a repository, or access to what already exists, no prep needed on your side. From there we spend two to five days reading the actual code, not clicking through the demo, so the review reflects what is really there rather than what it looks like from outside.
A written report and a fixed quote for whichever path applies, before anything changes. Ship it, fix it, finish it, or hand the whole thing to us, your call, made with the facts in front of you rather than a guess.
What’s included
- A full read of the codebase, not just a click through the demo
- Whether the data model and auth will hold up under real users
- What’s held together properly versus what’s held together by luck
- Security basics: exposed keys, open endpoints, unprotected routes
- A clear verdict, ship it, fix it, or rebuild the risky part
- A written report any other developer could pick up and understand
What you can do next
- Fix the specific problems and ship what you already have
- Finish the parts that were started but never completed
- Rebuild only the one piece that genuinely can’t be saved
- Take the whole thing over and keep building from here
It doesn’t matter who or what wrote it
Most audits now start with an AI builder rather than a developer. We regularly review code from all of these, and build on Next.js and Supabase ourselves once we take over.
Claude
Lovable
Bolt
v0
Cursor
Next.js
Supabase
PostgreSQL
TypeScriptA rebuild is the expensive default, not the only option
Most people who reach us here built something themselves first, often in Lovable, Bolt, v0 or with Claude, got it to a point that looked finished, and then hit a wall. The instinct at that point is usually to start over, and that is often the wrong, expensive call.
Most AI-built products need targeted fixes, not a restart. The tools are genuinely good at producing a working shape, they just don’t explain what’s fragile underneath it, which is exactly what the audit answers before you commit to rebuilding anything.
Before you send
us anything.
See all services Mostly you can’t tell from using it, which is the problem. Lovable, Bolt and similar tools are good at producing something that looks finished and clicks through cleanly in a demo. What they don’t show you is whether the database rules would let one user see another user’s data, whether the authentication is actually enforced on the server rather than just hidden in the interface, or whether the thing will hold up past a handful of testers. That needs someone reading the actual code, which is what the audit is.
Yes, most of what we review now started in one of those tools rather than with a developer. They tend to land on similar stacks, usually Supabase and a React or Next.js frontend, so we’re not learning an unfamiliar codebase from scratch. The review process is the same regardless of who or what wrote the original code.
The parts that matter once real users show up: data access rules, authentication, error handling, whether the database schema will scale past a demo, and how the third-party integrations are wired in. We’re not grading code style or renaming variables, we’re answering one question, does this hold up, and where specifically does it not.
You get a written report and a verdict, along with a fixed quote for whichever path applies. Some products just need a handful of fixes before launch. Some need the unfinished parts completed. Occasionally one piece needs rebuilding while the rest stays. Full rebuilds are the least common outcome, most AI-built products need targeted fixes, not a restart.
Yes. Some clients want a one-off audit and a report to hand to their own developer. Others want us to stay on as the technical decision-maker, reviewing architecture choices, approving what gets built next and being the person who answers when something breaks. That’s an ongoing arrangement, separate from the audit itself, and entirely optional.
A typical audit takes two to five days depending on the size of the codebase, and the price is fixed once we’ve seen what we’re looking at. You’ll know the number before we start, not after.
Regularly. Ownership passes to you either way, so taking over an existing build is no different from starting one, we just begin from what’s already there instead of from nothing. The audit is usually the first step, so the takeover starts from an accurate picture rather than guesswork.
Based on 100+ successful projects
Turn your idea into
a product people love.
Get a clear quote, a realistic timeline, and a plan tailored to your goals.
