Loading content, please waitAI wrote the code, nobody reviewed it
Those problems put your users, your data and your business at risk. Our engineers bring human eyes to what AI misses: security, logins, data, and how changes reach your users. In 5 days you get a written report of what to fix first.
Read-only access, revoked when the audit closes. We'll sign an NDA first if you want one.
Symptom check
It looks good in a demo. Then real people start using it. Things break, someone gets stuck, workarounds pile up. None of that means the product is bad. It means it was built to show the idea, not to work for the people now depending on it.
You ask for one small fix and something unrelated stops working. You find out when a user tells you.
The platform set the database up for you. Nobody is certain whose account it sits in, or who could get a copy out if you needed one tomorrow.
Uptime, access control, where their data sits. The questions are reasonable and you have nobody to hand them to.
It lives inside a platform account. You can look at it, but you cannot take it anywhere.
Every fix goes straight to the version your users are on, with no test copy in between. They are your testing environment.
Nobody in house can review the architecture, catch a bad call before it is built, or own the technical decisions you are being asked to make.
A real audit
A non-technical team built an internal ERP on Lovable. It looked finished and it ran the business. We were asked to look under it before the company grew any further.
How it works
Senior engineers read your build by hand. Fixed scope, no discovery phase to pay for. You keep working while we do this. Read access is all we need from you.
We take read access to the repository, the platform account and the database, then map what actually exists against what you believe exists. Differences at this stage are normal and usually the most useful finding of the week.
Secrets, credentials exposed in the browser bundle, database access rules, and what data is held where. We check what is reachable without logging in at all.
Every route into the application, the account recovery path, and the boundaries between one customer's data and another's.
The path from a change to your live users, the absence or presence of a staging step, backup coverage, and a real restore test where one is possible.
Structure, duplication and the parts that will break under growth, then the report itself, one you can read without an engineer in the room.
A written report from the engineers who read your code, in plain language, prioritised by what will cause problems first. The easy fixes are rarely the urgent ones. Every finding states the risk, the effort to resolve it, and what happens if it is left alone. It is yours to act on with us, with your own team, or with anyone else.
Working together
Each one is scoped before you commit to it. Everyone starts with the audit, and what follows is priced from what we find, not from a guess made before it.
Fixed price
5 days, quoted on the call
A full read of the build across security, data, authentication, deployment and code health, ending in a written and prioritised report.
Scoped from the audit
Fixed price, agreed before we start
We fix what we found, in the order the report sets out, with a price agreed before the work starts.
Monthly retainer
Scoped from the audit
A dedicated senior engineer accountable for your technical decisions while you are too small to hire one full time.
The audit is a fixed price, agreed before it starts, with nothing added to it. You get the figure on the call, once we know what your build is. Treatment and retainer pricing is quoted only after the audit, because pricing either one earlier would be a guess.
Fit
The product is real and the risk is already live.
We would rather say so now.
Checklist
Twelve sections covering what only starts to matter once real people are using the app: who can see whose data, what happens when something fails, and whether anyone can rebuild it if it breaks.
Opens in a new tab. No email form.
Why Creiden
Questions
Usually not. Most AI built apps are worth keeping. What is missing is the engineering around them: version control, a staging environment, real authentication, backups and a sane file structure. We recommend a rebuild only when repair costs more than replacement, and the report shows that arithmetic.
Yes. These are legitimate tools and we work alongside them, so this is not a matter of leaving one. The code moves into a repository your company owns, the database into an account under your control, and deployment onto infrastructure you can see. Scope and price come from the audit.
Lovable connects to GitHub from the project settings, which pushes the code into a repository you own. The export itself is the easy part. What it does not carry across is your database, your secrets, or a safe way to deploy a change, which is where most founders get stuck.
Not by default. The common failures: the app's own passwords are visible to anyone who opens it in a browser, the database will answer questions from people who should not be asking, and there is no password reset or second step at login. None of them are hard to fix once found, but they stay invisible until somebody looks for them.
Less often than people assume. The platform provisions the database for you, so it sits in an account you pay for but never set up. Getting a clean export out of it, or moving the code into a repository your company controls, is harder than it should be.
The audit is a fixed price covering 5 days of work and a written report, with nothing added to it. We give you the figure on the call, once we have heard what your build is and confirmed the audit is worth doing at all. Treatment and retainer pricing is quoted only after the audit, because pricing repair work before reading the code would be a guess.
Yes. The report is written to be handed on: every finding states the risk, the effort to resolve it, and what happens if it is left alone. Investors and acquirers test for the same things we do. Most founders order it before a raise rather than after a term sheet arrives.
Often yes, up to a point. The usual limit is not raw traffic but everything around it: no caching, queries written without indexes, state held in the browser, and no way to deploy a fix safely while users are on the app. All of it is fixable.
Yes. The audit reads your repository, your platform account and your running application, so the tool that generated the code matters less than what it produced. We see builds from every one of these generators, and the failure patterns are consistent whichever tool wrote it.
Yes. Access is read-only unless you ask otherwise, it is revoked when the audit closes, and findings are never named or shown in our own material without written permission. We will sign your NDA if you want one in place first, or provide ours.
Next step
A short call to see whether the audit is worth doing. If it is not, we will say so on the call.
