Before You Ship It, Know What You Are Actually Shipping
You built it with AI and it seems to work. An independent audit of your vibe-coded app tells you what actually works, what breaks under real users, and what stands between you and launch — back in 24 to 48 hours.
It seems to work.
That is the problem
An AI-built app that demos cleanly tells you nothing about what happens under real users, real data and real attackers. Not knowing is what stops the decision.
Start Your AuditUnknowns
Stalled
Exposure
Twelve areas, every audit
The same framework on every vibe-coded application, whatever generated it. Every area is checked deliberately, including the ones that look fine from the outside.
Security
Exposed secrets, injection, input handling, rate limiting.
Authentication
Account creation, session handling, token lifetime, recovery.
Authorisation
Who can reach what, and whether the model is coherent.
Data & database
Schema integrity, access rules, migrations, backups.
APIs
Unprotected routes, contracts, third-party failure handling.
Architecture
Structure, state, coupling, and what it costs to change.
Critical flows
Signup, payment, core actions — clicked through by a person.
Performance
Query patterns, payloads, and behaviour under real load.
Error handling
Unhandled states, silent failures, observability gaps.
Dependencies
Known vulnerabilities, abandoned packages, licence risk.
Deployment
Environment separation, secrets management, recovery.
AI-specific risk
Prompt injection, model cost exposure, vendor lock-in.
The risks a generic code review misses
An app built with AI carries failure modes a traditional audit was never designed to look for. These are checked explicitly.
Risks from how it was built
- Packages that do not exist, hallucinated into your imports
- Copied patterns carrying known vulnerabilities forward
- Auth logic that looks right and checks the wrong thing
- Confident code with no test on any critical path
- Fixes applied in one place and missed in four others
Risks from what it does
- Prompt injection where user input reaches a model
- Model spend that scales faster than your revenue does
- No fallback when a provider is slow, down or deprecated
- User data sent to an API nobody documented
- Outputs shown to users with no validation or guardrail
How the Audit Runs
Scope & Access
We Audit
You Get a Decision
Scope & Access
A short conversation about what the app does and who uses it, then read-only repository access and a deployed environment. The clock starts when access lands, not when you pay.
We Audit
Automated tooling makes the first pass so engineers spend their time on judgement. Every critical flow is clicked through by a person, not inferred from the code. 24 to 48 hours from access.
You Get a Decision
A plain-English report ranked by risk, a walkthrough call, and a fixed quote to fix what matters — which you are free to hand to your own developer instead.
Scope & Access
A short conversation about what the app does and who uses it, then read-only repository access and a deployed environment. The clock starts when access lands, not when you pay.
We Audit
Automated tooling makes the first pass so engineers spend their time on judgement. Every critical flow is clicked through by a person, not inferred from the code. 24 to 48 hours from access.
You Get a Decision
A plain-English report ranked by risk, a walkthrough call, and a fixed quote to fix what matters — which you are free to hand to your own developer instead.
What You Actually Receive
A decision you can act on, written to be read by whoever has to approve the budget — not only by an engineer.
View All ServicesThe Findings Report
- Every issue, in plain English
- Ranked critical, high, medium, low
- What it is and what it risks
- Where in the codebase it lives
- Readable by a non-engineer
The Remediation Plan
The Verdict
The Walkthrough
From it seems to work, to you know
The audit does not make the application better. It makes the decision about the application possible.
| What is included | Before the auditConfidence without evidence | After the auditA decision you can defend |
|---|---|---|
| State of the app | It seems to work | You know what works |
| Security posture | Unknown | Findings ranked by risk |
| Remaining work | A weekend, or a rebuild? | Scoped and sequenced |
| Developer quotes | No way to judge them | Priced against a real list |
| Cost to run | Discovered on the invoice | Modelled before launch |
| Investor questions | Answered from memory | Answered from a report |
| The decision | Not included | Ship, fix, or rebuild |
We do not promise to find a fixed number of problems. A guarantee like that is an incentive to pad the list, and a clean result is a legitimate outcome we would rather be able to report honestly.
One price. One decision
A fixed fee for one application. No hourly meter, no retainer, and no obligation beyond the audit itself.
| What is included | The AI Code Audit$175one-time, per applicationReport back in 24 to 48 hours from access.Start Your Audit |
|---|---|
| Twelve-area review | Included |
| Security, auth and authorisation | Included |
| Data, APIs and architecture | Included |
| Critical flows clicked through by a person | Included |
| AI-specific risk assessment | Included |
| Cost-to-run at scale | Included |
| Findings ranked critical to low | Included |
| Prioritised remediation plan | Included |
| Walkthrough call with the engineer | Included |
| Turnaround from access granted | 24 to 48 hours |
| Guaranteed number of findings | Not included |
| Obligation to buy the fixes | Not included |
One payment, in USD, plus applicable tax. Read-only access throughout — we never commit, deploy or touch production data, and we retain no copy of your code after the engagement. Remediation, if you want it, is quoted separately against the report's own priority order.
Who this audit is for
A good fit if
- You built a product with AI tools and cannot judge its state
- You are close to launch and want to know what you are shipping
- You are about to hire a developer and cannot scope the job
- Investors or an acquirer are asking how it was built
- It works, and you need to know whether it will keep working
Probably not yet if
- The app is still a prototype nobody has used
- You already know it needs rebuilding and have decided
- You want someone to fix it without assessing it first
- There is no deployed environment to click through
- You want a number to justify a decision already made
What we audit across
The tools that generated it and the stacks they reach for. If yours is not here, ask before you commit.
- Claude
- ChatGPT
- Cursor
- v0
- React
- Next.js
- Node.js
- TypeScript
- Python
- Supabase
- PostgreSQL
- Stripe
Plus Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Firebase, Docker and the usual deployment targets. Read-only repository access and a deployed environment are all we need to begin.
Why Have Us Look at
It
We build with these tools every day, which is why we are precise about what they do and do not produce
We Use These Tools
Our engineers work in Claude and Cursor daily. We know the failure modes.
No Padded Count
We do not promise a number of findings. A clean result is a real result.
Read-Only, Always
We never commit, deploy, or touch production data. The code stays yours.
Fix It or Do Not
Hand the report to your own developer. The audit stands on its own.
A Team After It
If you want the fixes done, the same engineers stay on it.
What the AuditIs, and What ItIs Not
What happens next
The audit is a starting point, not a package you are locked into. Three routes out of it, all legitimate.
Ship it
Nothing critical found, or you fix the short list yourself. We say so plainly when that is the answer.
We fix it
A fixed quote against the report's own priority order, done by the engineers who ran the audit.
Talk about remediation →We stay on
Teams that keep shipping move to an ongoing arrangement — new features, integrations and maintenance.
Technical execution for SaaS teams →What Clients Say About the Delivery
Yusuf is amazing to work with! So positive and polite and delivers work at lightening speed! Highly recommend him!
Professional worker. Great attitude and got everything done in the timeframe he promised. Brought our website Semrush statues from a mid 70's to a 97%. Was always available to answer any questions we had. Will definitely hire him again for any projects going forward
Muhammad went above and beyond to get the job done. Highly recommend working with him.
Highly skilled, and provides great quality work. Communication and Cooperation is fantastic!
Can it get any better than this? I was travelling and not able to send all the details for Muhammad, but he did amazing work and can I see he has years of experiences and is very profesional. In fact, I just hired him again. Highly recommended
Really great work in web design and web development. I can highly recommend him. Good communication and quick responses.
Muhammad quickly found the root of the problem and fixed it. He needed no hand holding, he just jumped right in a fixed it which was exactly what I needed.
Muhammad is a very experienced Wordpress Developer, I really like working with him!
Muhammad did an excellent job on our website and followed the brief. He is a good communicator and didn't hesitate to ask any questions about aspects of the design and layout. We would highly recommend him.
great to work with and solved our problems. Recommended!
Muhammad communicates well and has solid development expertise. He is fair in how he operates and will not charge for payment if the intended outcome is not possible despite spending the time researching the solution
Super helpful and really creative with implementing landing page design for an online course. I'm grateful for his support and effort in being accessible for updates and changes. Looking forward to working with him again!
Muhammad went above and beyond to get the job done. Highly recommend working with him.
Audit FAQs
Read-only access to the repository, and a deployed environment we can click through. That is the technical minimum. If your app lives inside a hosted builder like Lovable, Bolt, Replit or v0, we will point you at the export or access step for that platform. We also ask what the app is supposed to do and who uses it — an audit without that context can only tell you what is technically wrong, not what actually matters.
Then we say so, and that is a legitimate result rather than a failed audit. We do not promise to find a set number of problems, because a promise like that is an incentive to pad the list. Some AI-built applications are in better shape than their founders think — usually the ones where somebody was already reviewing what the tools produced. You would still get the report, the risk ranking and a straight answer on what to do next.
No. The audit is read-only. We do not commit, we do not deploy, and we do not run anything against production data. Where a check genuinely needs execution — a dependency scan, a load test — we run it against a copy or a local build and tell you before we do. The code stays yours and we do not retain a copy after the engagement.
A scanner finds patterns it has been taught to recognise. It cannot tell you that your authorisation model is coherent but wrong for your business, that your data schema will not survive the feature on your roadmap, or that a workflow works but costs more per user than you charge. Those need somebody who understands what the application is for. We use automated tooling as the first pass precisely so our engineers spend their time on the judgement calls instead.
Anything we can read. In practice that means applications generated or assisted by Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, Copilot, v0, Lovable, Bolt and Replit, on the stacks those tools reach for — React, Next.js, Node, TypeScript, Python, Supabase, Postgres, Firebase and Stripe. If your stack is not on that list, ask. We will tell you honestly before you commit whether we are the right people to look at it.
You own the report and you are free to act on it entirely without us — some clients hand it to their own developer, and that is a fine outcome. If you would rather we fixed the findings, we scope that as its own piece of work with a fixed quote, prioritised by the risk ranking in the report. Teams that keep shipping afterwards usually move to an ongoing arrangement, but nothing about the audit requires it.
24 to 48 hours from the moment we have access — not from the moment you pay. The faster the repository invite and a working environment reach us, the faster the report lands. If your application is unusually large or has an unusual number of critical flows, we tell you before starting rather than quietly running over.
$175, one payment, for one application. That covers the full twelve-area review, the findings report, the remediation plan and the walkthrough call. There is no hourly meter and no commitment beyond the audit itself. If you decide you want the fixes done afterwards, that is quoted separately against the report's own priority order — and you are equally free to hand the report to your own developer instead.
Often, yes. Investors and acquirers increasingly ask how much of a codebase was AI-generated and what review it had. Walking into that conversation with an independent report, a risk ranking and a remediation plan already underway is a materially stronger position than being asked the question cold. We write the report to be readable by a non-engineer for exactly this reason.