Service · AI code rescue

Your AI built 80%. We find out why the last 20% won't ship.

Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, v0, Windsurf, Claude Code, Replit, Base44 — one senior engineer reads your app end to end and tells you what is actually wrong. Not a scan. A read, and a written verdict you can act on — with us or with anyone.

Book a free call

30 minutes, no slides, no pitch. The App Audit is $499 fixed — scoped on the call, then it runs async.

$499

Fixed price

48h

Written report + Loom

50+

AI apps scanned

10+

Read end to end

LovableBoltv0CursorWindsurfClaude CodeReplitBase44

In short

AI Code Rescue is a $499, 48-hour senior code review for apps built with AI tools. One engineer reads the codebase, data model, auth, and payment flows end to end, then returns a written verdict — keep, fix, rebuild, or retire — with a ranked list of what is most likely to break next. It works on Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, v0, Windsurf, Claude Code, Replit, Base44, and hand-written code.

01 / Where you are

You are not bad at prompting. You have hit the part prompting doesn't solve.

Every app we audit arrives at roughly the same place. None of them needed a rebuild as the first move.

Fix the filter
The table breaks
Fix the table
Login breaks
Fix login

The loop
Every fix breaks something else.
You fix the filter and the table stops loading. You fix the table and login breaks. Ten prompts and a few hundred credits later you are back where you started, minus the credits.
The plateau
The first 80% took a weekend. The last 20% has taken six weeks.
The demo was fast because none of the hard parts were real yet. Auth that actually holds, payments that reconcile, data that does not leak — that is the 20%, and prompting does not get you through it.
The blind spot
You cannot tell whether it is your prompting or the code.
The tool says it fixed it. The app says otherwise. With no way to read the code yourself, there is no way to know whether the next prompt helps or digs deeper.
The quiet risk
You do not know what is exposed.
Nobody set row-level security, rotated the keys sitting in the client bundle, or checked whether the payment webhook is verified. The app looks finished. That is not the same as being safe to launch.

02 / What we actually find

We scan a lot of AI-built apps. We read far fewer. The reading is where this came from.

A scan tells you a file changed. It doesn't tell you a stranger can read your users' rows. These three findings came out of the apps a senior engineer read end to end — not off a checklist.

To date

50+

AI apps scanned

10+

Read end to end

Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, v0, Windsurf, Claude Code, Replit, Base44 and in-house. Every app we read end to end produced a written verdict.

Both numbers are real and neither is big. That's the point — the findings below came from reading, and reading doesn't scale the way scanning does.

01
Keys and secrets shipped in the client bundle
API keys, service tokens, and third-party credentials sitting in the JavaScript the browser downloads. Anyone who opens devtools has them. AI tools put keys wherever the code compiles, and compiling is not the same as being safe.
02
No row-level security
Policies left permissive or never written, so any logged-in user could query every other user's rows. The app enforces nothing at the database. This is the failure behind most of the vibe-coded data leaks that made the news.
03
Payments that didn't reconcile
Webhooks unverified, no idempotency, or the app trusting the browser to report that a charge succeeded. Money moves and the records don't match — which you usually discover from a customer, not a dashboard.

03 / Why it happens

The model optimises for code that runs. Not code that holds.

An AI tool is rewarded for producing something that compiles and looks right in the preview. Nothing in that loop asks whether the key belongs on the server, whether a stranger can read another user's row, or what happens when two people check out at once. Those questions have never been in the prompt.

That is why the failures cluster. It is not that the code is bad — most of it is fine. It is that the parts nobody thought to ask about were never written, and from the outside a missing safeguard and a working feature look identical.

Which is also why more prompting does not fix it. You cannot prompt your way past a question you do not know to ask. That is the whole job of the audit: asking them, in your codebase, in writing.

04 / It has gone the other way before

A broken AI codebase we didn't rebuild.

The cheapest outcome is the one nobody sells you: the app is salvageable, and someone senior fixes it in place.

Fixed · AI code rescue

Dr. Golly

Inherited a broken AI-generated codebase. We fixed it in place and shipped both platforms.

Platforms (web + React Native)

13+

Course modules shipped

Currencies supported

Read the case study

“Thorough technical investigation that uncovered serious issues I had no visibility into — including a security vulnerability he verified with evidence. The recommended paths were scoped with honest trade-offs. No upselling, no pressure.”

Maria

Founder, unmap

05 / What the audit covers

What a senior engineer actually reads.

Twenty-four to forty-eight hours, async. You do not need to be on a call for any of it.

Secrets and keys

Every credential the app ships to the browser, and every one that should have stayed on the server. This is the finding that recurs most.

Data access rules

Whether row-level security exists at all, and whether a logged-in user can reach rows that aren't theirs. We test it, we don't assume it.

Auth and sessions

Where the permission check actually runs, what it checks, and what happens when someone skips the UI and calls the endpoint directly.

Payments

Webhook verification, idempotency, and whether the app trusts the browser to confirm a charge. Money that moves without matching records.

What breaks under load

The queries and hot paths that are fine with ten users and fall over at a thousand. Named, ranked, with the smallest fix for each.

The verdict

Keep, fix, rebuild, or retire — in writing, with reasoning. We ship all four, so the answer isn't shaped by what we'd rather sell you.

06 / Whatever you built it with

The tool changes. The questions don't.

Each of these leaves a different kind of gap. The audit starts in a different place depending on what built your app — but it ends the same way, with a written verdict.

Built on Lovable?

Lovable apps almost always have Supabase behind them, so the policy layer is the first thing we read: whether row-level security was ever switched on, and whether the anon key is doing work it should not be trusted with.

Built on Bolt?

Bolt gets a full-stack app running quickly. The audit looks at what happens once it leaves the sandbox — environment variables, the server/client boundary, and which calls are actually executing in the browser.

Built on v0?

v0 is strongest at the interface. We spend the audit behind it: where the data really lives, whether server actions validate what they receive, and what the UI is trusting the client to tell it.

Built on Cursor?

Cursor code usually reads well. The problems tend to be architectural — decisions made across a dozen sessions that were never reconciled, and fixes that quietly undid earlier ones.

Built on Windsurf?

Same shape as Cursor. The files are structured, but nobody held the whole system in their head at once, so we read for drift: places where two parts of the app assume different things.

Built on Claude Code?

Agent-written codebases move fast and record little about why. We reconstruct the intent first, then check the boundaries the agent was never asked about — auth, secrets, and the error paths.

Built on Replit?

Replit gets you deployed early, which means the prototype and production look identical. We check secrets handling, what lives in the repl versus the environment, and whether it holds under real traffic.

Built on Base44?

Base44 handles a lot for you. The audit maps what is actually yours — where the data sits, which pieces are portable, and what leaving would cost if you ever needed to.

Also audited

Bubble
FlutterFlow
Webflow
Framer
Glide
Softr
Adalo
Firebase Studio
GitHub Copilot Workspace
Devin

On Bubble specifically, the question is usually whether to move off it at all — that has its own page.

Which call is yours?

Keep, fix, rebuild, or retire.

Every engagement starts with the $499 audit — the audit decides which of these four your app needs. We ship all four, so the verdict isn't biased toward the biggest invoice.

When Consolices recommends keep, fix, rebuild, or retire — with typical cost and timeline.
Verdict	When it's the call	What we do	Cost	Timeline
Keep	The substrate is sound and the app holds.	You get the report and ranked risks, then we part ways.	$0 further	—
Fix	Blocking issues, but the platform itself is fine.	Fix Sprint — fixed in place and shipped to production.	$3K–$8K	2–4 weeks
Rebuild	The platform itself is the ceiling.	Production Rebuild — Next.js + Postgres, migrated with no downtime.	$10K–$35K	6–10 weeks
Retire	The honest call is to stop.	We put it in writing before you spend another dollar.	$0 further	—

Who does the work

Muzammil Muneer

Founder & Lead Engineer, Consolices

Every audit, fix, and rebuild runs through one senior engineer. Over 7+ years, Muzammil has shipped production software across Bubble, React Native, and Next.js — greenfield MVPs, three-sided marketplaces, and rescues of AI-generated codebases that couldn't deploy. The person who reads your app is the person who fixes it.

Top Rated Plus · UpworkBubble Certified7+ years full-stack

Muzammil on LinkedIn

Questions we get from founders mid-build.

No — half built is the best time. The findings that cost the most to fix later (data access rules, where secrets live, how auth is structured) are cheapest to fix before you've built ten more features on top of them. An audit at 80% saves more than an audit at launch.

Usually yes, and that's the most common outcome — a Fix Sprint, fixed scope and fixed price, scoped from the audit. But we won't quote it before reading the code. Anyone who gives you a price and a delivery date before opening the repo is guessing, and you'll pay for the guess.

Then it says so, with the reasoning, and you can take that to us or to anyone. Rebuild is the verdict we give least often, because an unnecessary rebuild is the most expensive mistake on the menu. If a Fix Sprint solves it, that's what the report will say.

Read-only is enough: an invite to the project (Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Base44) or the repo (Cursor, Windsurf, Claude Code, or anything self-hosted), plus the live URL. A mutual NDA is signed before we open the first file.

Yes — the report, the findings, and any code we write. There's no proprietary layer and no lock-in. The audit is a document you can hand to any developer, including one who isn't us.

Then the report says "keep", you get the ranked risk list anyway, and we part ways with nothing further to buy. If the report isn't worth what you paid, we refund it.

Stop guessing at the last 20%.

Send read-only access. We hand back the verdict in writing in 48 hours. You decide what happens next — with us or with anyone.