Your team shipped it fast. Has anyone outside the team read the code?
AI coding tools let a small team build in weeks what used to take months. They also write code that looks finished and passes the demo while skipping the checks a careful engineer adds by habit. I spend two full days in your code, by hand, and tell you what I find.
The same reason you'd get a security audit
This isn't a grade on your team. Serious engineering teams bring in outside reviewers for the same reason they get penetration tests: the people who built something are the worst placed to see what it assumes.
AI-assisted code makes that gap wider. The tool writes what you asked for and stops there. Server-side validation, authorization checks on every record, timeouts on outside calls, and error handling for the inputs nobody tested are the parts it tends to leave out, and they're also the parts a demo never exercises.
I've spent 30 years building and running production software, and these days I spend a lot of my own time having AI write code. I know firsthand where it excels: getting a working feature on screen fast, scaffolding, and the repetitive parts nobody wants to type. It does its best work on what engineers call the happy path, where the user enters the right thing, the outside service answers, and the data is clean. Real users leave that path constantly, and that's where I keep catching what it missed.
I read code the way I would if I had to maintain it, and I run the app myself to try the inputs a real user eventually will.
Five areas, read by hand
Security
- Secrets and API keys reachable from the browser or the repo
- Records any signed-in user can read or change by editing an ID
- Login, signup, and password reset that can be brute-forced or used to find out who has an account
- Input that reaches the database, the page, or the disk without being checked
Performance
- Queries filtering or joining on columns with no index
- Outside API calls and database queries with no timeout
- List endpoints with no pagination or limit
- Anything that works with fifty rows and stalls at fifty thousand
Stability
- Unhandled errors and silent failures
- Raw error pages and stack traces shown to users
- Validation that only lives in the browser
- Whether anyone would know if it broke tonight
Data integrity, email, and domain
- Prices and calculations the server trusts from the browser
- Limits and quotas that behave inconsistently
- Whether your domain's email can be spoofed
- Whether the services you depend on are set up the way you think they are
Two days in the code, then we go through it together
- Two full days reading and running your code
- A written report ranked by what to fix now, what to fix soon, and what's fine to leave
- A 90-minute walkthrough, in person or by video, to go through every finding
- Plain explanations your team can act on, with the reasoning behind each one
A read-only link to the repo, a way to run the app, and a few lines on what it does.
Reading it, running it, and trying the inputs a real user eventually will.
The ranked report, then 90 minutes to go through it with you and your team.
What a few hours of looking turned up
Both of these were short, informal passes done as favors: a few hours of using each app, before any code review. A full AI App Review goes much further.
Know what you're agreeing to
The fixed price covers the review, the report, and the walkthrough. Fixing what I find is quoted separately once we both know the scope, and only if you want me to do it. Your own team can take the report and run with it.
I'll arrange read-only access after we talk, and I'll sign an NDA if you'd like one. Please don't send credentials through the form.
A review finds what two careful days can find. It can't promise the app will never fail, and nothing can. Every finding in the report is something I found by hand, with the steps to reproduce it.
Tell me what you'd like reviewed
I'll follow up to talk through the app and arrange access. This form requests the work; it doesn't charge you.