// AI Code Cleanup
Vibe-coded, AI-generated, or built faster than anyone could review it — we audit what you have, find what breaks under real users and real data, and make it production-safe. It starts with a free audit, delivered in 48 to 72 hours, that's yours to keep whether or not you hire us.
Fine with ten testers, falling over with a hundred real ones. The queries never met a real dataset, nothing is cached, nothing is rate-limited, and the bill from your hosting provider is climbing faster than your signups.
Endpoints that never got an access check, keys committed straight into the repository, a database that answers to anyone who asks. The model was never told which parts were sensitive, so it didn't ask.
Every feature came from a fresh prompt, so there are three ways to fetch a user and two ways to take a payment. Fixing one leaves the other two wrong, and nobody knows which one production actually uses.
There are no tests to tell you when you've broken something and no documentation to say what was deliberate. Every edit is a guess, so the safest thing to do with your own product is leave it alone.
// The Starting Point
Free
48–72 hour turnaround
Not a “free consultation” — a written deliverable. You end up holding a document you can act on, not a calendar invite and a sales pitch.
Read access is enough — we work from a copy of the repository, not your production systems.
The report is yours to keep — including if you hand it to your own team or another developer.
Fixed scope, so it stays free. It can't quietly turn into a billable discovery project.
What you get
AI-generated code fails in patterns, not at random. It is fluent, it is consistent-looking, and it is wrong in the places nobody thought to specify. These are the ones we go looking for first.
Every route and query checked for who is actually allowed to call it. Generated code defends what it was told to defend and nothing else.
API keys, tokens and connection strings committed into source, plus whatever is already sitting in your git history where deleting the line doesn't remove it.
The same job implemented several ways across several files, so a fix in one place quietly leaves the others broken.
Packages that don't exist, are abandoned, or behave differently from what the model confidently wrote around them.
A suite that passes tells you nothing if it was generated from the same misunderstanding as the code it covers.
Missing indexes, loops that hit the database once per item, and everything else that only shows up once you're succeeding.
Schema changes with no rollback path, which turn an ordinary bad deploy into an outage with no way back.
Three ways forward, and one of them is walking away. We'd rather you pick the right one than the expensive one.
The audit is a deliverable, not a sales call. It's yours to keep and act on however you like — including with your own team or another developer. You owe us nothing further.
Pick the single worst finding — the open endpoint, the leaked key, the query taking your site down at peak — and we'll scope that alone before you commit to anything more.
We take ownership: harden it, test it, document it, and keep building on it. Priced once we've seen it — fixed fee where the scope is predictable, hourly where it honestly isn't.
We won't publish a rate card for custom software — any number we put here would be wrong for most of the people reading it. What we will do is tell you exactly how the number gets decided.
Always, and with no obligation. You get the written verdict and the plan whether or not you ever hire us — including if you hand it to another developer.
Once we've seen the codebase and the scope is clear enough to commit to, you get one number and one timeline. No hourly meter, no surprise invoices.
Some work can't be honestly estimated up front — deep unknowns in an inherited system, or a scope that will move as we learn. There we bill hourly, because padding a fixed price for that risk means you pay for it whether it happens or not.
No speculative proposals for work you haven't decided on. Tell us you want it built and we'll price it properly — which is also why we look at the code first.
// The Part Most Agencies Leave Out
You reached a working product in days instead of months, and you found out whether anyone wanted it before spending a year building it. That was the right call. What generated code doesn't give you is the part nobody prompts for — access control, failure handling, tests, and a shape that survives the next ten changes. That gap isn't a sign you did it wrong. It's just the bill for going fast, and it comes due the week real users arrive.
We use these tools every day ourselves, including on this website. We're not here to tell you AI can't write software. We're here to tell you which of the parts it wrote you can actually stand on.
Most people who come to us have been let down by a developer before. These are the four things they tell us they wish they'd had in writing last time — so we put them in writing first.
You meet the senior engineer who will actually write your code — by name, on the first call. No handoff to a junior once the contract is signed, and no subcontracting your project to someone you've never met.
You own the code the moment it's written, not when the final invoice clears. It lives in your repository, under your account, documented so any developer can pick it up. No lock-in, and nothing held hostage.
Each milestone is something you can open and use — not a percentage of an estimate. If a milestone doesn't land, the next one isn't billed until it does.
Ask and we'll sign yours, or send ours, before you share a repository, a database, or a business plan. We'd rather do the paperwork first than ask you to trust us with it.
Straight answer: we launched this as a named service in 2026, because it's the failure mode we now see most often. What sits behind it isn't new. We've spent years taking over other people's codebases — stalled builds, inherited systems, work someone walked away from — and AI-written code is a specific flavour of that same job. It has its own failure modes: it's confident, it looks consistent, and it's wrong in places that read perfectly fine. We also build with AI every day, including this website, which is the main reason we can tell quickly which parts of a generated codebase are load-bearing and which are filler. The audit is free precisely so you don't have to take our word for any of that — you'll have a document in 48 to 72 hours and you can judge us on it.
Only if that's genuinely true, and we'd rather it weren't. A cleanup is worth doing when repairing costs meaningfully less than rebuilding, and with AI-generated code it usually does — the product decisions are sound, it's the plumbing underneath that was never thought through. When the foundations really can't carry what you need, the report says so, along with what we'd do instead and roughly what it would cost.
Good, and there's nothing embarrassing about it. You got to a working product without waiting on a developer, which is the part most people never manage. The tools don't change the audit — we'll tell you what we find and what it takes to make it safe, without the lecture about how it should have been built.
Yes, and we'd want you to. Handing back a codebase you can no longer prompt against would just move the problem. A real part of this work is making it safe to keep going — tests that catch a bad generation before it ships, structure clear enough that the model follows it instead of inventing a fourth pattern, and hard limits around the parts that must never be improvised.
Not for the audit. Read access to the repository is enough to tell you where you stand, and we'll work from a copy. Anything that touches live systems or live data happens later, with your permission, and we'll say plainly what we need and why before we ask.
48 to 72 hours from the moment we have read access. It's a fixed scope, so it can't quietly turn into a billable discovery project.
There isn't one. Reading a codebase is how we find out whether we can help, and we'd rather spend two days learning that than two weeks writing a proposal for work we shouldn't take. It also filters honestly in both directions: if the code is in better shape than you feared, we'll say so and you'll have saved yourself a project. You keep the document regardless, and giving us read access is the entire cost.
A senior engineer, named before you commit. Not an automated scanner, and not a junior with a checklist — a static analysis tool can flag a missing index, but it can't tell you that two files disagree about what a user is, which is the class of problem generated code produces most. The person who writes the audit is the person who'd do the remediation.
// Free, No Commitment
Find out what
you're standing on.
Give us read access and tell us what's worrying you. In 48 to 72 hours you'll have an honest read on what holds, what doesn't, and what to fix first — at no cost, and the report is yours either way.
