Built with Claude Code

Claude Code writes real code, and it breaks in real places.

Because this one works in an actual repository, what you get is an actual codebase: dependencies that resolve, migrations that run, a pipeline that has an opinion. That is the good news and it is also why the failures land outside the conversation, in places another prompt cannot see.

What usually breaks in Claude Code

A migration ran in one environment and not the other

The change was applied where the work was happening and the other database never received it. Queries referencing the new column fail there and only there, so you get errors that cannot be reproduced locally and a colleague insisting the feature is fine. The fix is to make the applied state visible before anything else is guessed at.

Dependencies real enough to conflict

Two packages want different versions of the same thing, or a lockfile was regenerated and quietly moved a dozen of them. The install succeeds and something unrelated behaves differently at runtime, which is a much harder shape of problem than a build that refuses outright.

Tests that pass locally and fail in CI

Your machine has environment variables, a warm database, files from a previous run and one timezone; the pipeline has none of that and a different clock. The test is not flaky, it depends on something nobody wrote down, and each re-run is another ten minutes spent not finding out which.

It breaks somewhere prompting cannot reach

The fault is in the deployment platform, a DNS record, a webhook signature, a queue that stopped being consumed. No amount of context about your code contains it, and a coding session will keep proposing plausible code changes because that is the only lever it has. This needs somebody reading logs on the other side.

I can already generate code. What am I paying for?
For the part that is not code: reading the logs of a system you cannot see from inside your repository, and saying which of four plausible causes is the real one. You get that as a short video and written findings, so the next session has facts to work from instead of guesses.
Will you work in the repository, or hand me a patch?
Whichever you prefer, and it is agreed before we start. Most people want a branch and a pull request they can read; some want the findings only and would rather make the changes themselves. The price is the same either way.
What do you need access to?
The repository, the failing pipeline run, and read access to the logs of wherever it is deployed. That last one is the piece people forget, and it is usually where the answer is.
Can you set it up so this does not happen again?
Partly, and cheaply. Making the migration state and the required environment variables checkable turns two of the four faults above into something you can see in a minute. We quote that alongside the repair and you can take it or leave it.

How it works

Audit

$199$349promo

You send a link, a repo, or both. We reproduce the problem, read the code, and record a short walkthrough: what's broken, why it broke, and what it takes to fix. You get written findings and a fixed quote.

Book my audit

Full Fix

Priced after the audit

Scoped from the audit and agreed before anything starts. We fix the cause rather than the symptom, and hand back something maintainable, with a written note on what changed and why.

Nobody can price this honestly before seeing the code. The audit is what makes a firm number possible.

The audit is a fixed price and you know it before you pay. Everything after it is quoted from what the audit actually found, and you approve the number before any work starts.

Why trust us with it

What we can show you is who does the work, what it costs, and how well we already know the failure you are staring at.

A desk at night, the walkthrough being recorded

A small agency, not a marketplace

This is run by a small web agency. The person who records your audit is the person who does the fix, so you're not being routed to an anonymous bidder.

$199$349promo

The audit stands on its own

Plenty of people take the findings and do the work themselves, or hand them to their own developer. That is a fine outcome and nothing is bundled to stop it.

Book my audit

Fixed price, agreed up front

You approve a number before work starts. If the job turns out harder than we estimated, that's ours to absorb, not a change order.

Built with one of these? You're in the right place.

Lovable
Lovable projects usually break at the Supabase edge: environment variables that never reached production, or row-level security left open on a table that holds real customer data.
Bolt
Bolt ships fast and leaves the build config behind. The deploy fails on a missing package, a Node version, or an API key that only ever existed in the preview.
Replit
Replit apps run fine in the workspace and 500 on a real domain: ports, file paths and secrets that were never wired up for the deployed process.
Cursor
Cursor edits confidently across files it has not read. Two features end up disagreeing about the same state, and the bug moves every time you fix it.
v0
v0 gives you the interface, not the wiring. Forms post to nothing, server actions are still stubs, and auth is a component rather than a session.
Windsurf
Windsurf refactors reach further than intended. Imports, types and routes drift apart until the build stops on something unrelated to what you changed.
Base44
Base44 apps hit their ceiling at data and roles: the model that fit the demo cannot carry a second kind of user without redoing what sits underneath it.
Claude Code
Claude Code writes real code, which means real dependencies, migrations and tests. When it breaks, it breaks somewhere prompting cannot reach.

What it usually turns out to be

It works locally, then 500s once deployed
Nearly always an environment variable, a build step or a file path that only exists on your machine. The code is usually fine.
The AI keeps fixing the same bug
Each pass patches the symptom because the cause sits a layer down, in the data model or in how state is shared. Prompting harder does not reach it.
Forms submit but nothing arrives
The browser gets a success back while the server quietly fails. Without error handling and logs nobody finds out until a customer complains.
Logins drop or leak between users
Session and auth code copied from an example built for a different rendering model. It looks right in testing and breaks under real traffic.

And what nobody notices until later

Security is the part an AI builder is quietest about. None of these stop the app working, which is exactly why they ship.

The database is open to anyone with the URL
Supabase and Firebase hand the browser a key on purpose — the row policies are what actually guard the data. Generated projects routinely ship with those policies off, which turns a public key into a key to everything.
Secrets that shipped to the browser
A service key pasted into a component, or one prefixed NEXT_PUBLIC_ so the build would stop complaining. It is in the page source, readable in devtools, and the bill for it is yours.
Any logged-in user can read every other user's data
The endpoint takes an id and returns that record without ever asking whose it is. Nothing looks wrong while you are the only account; change the number in the URL and you are in someone else's.
Nothing stops the same request a thousand times over
No rate limit and no real validation on the public routes, so login, password reset and checkout can each be hammered until something gives. Generated code almost never adds this on its own.

If you recognised your own problem somewhere above, that is the point. The audit is where you find out which one it actually is.

Book my audit

$199$349promo

Send it over. We'll tell you what's wrong.

One fixed-price audit at $199 instead of $349. A video walkthrough, written findings and a firm quote on what it takes to fix.

Book my audit

Book my audit

$199. Fixed price, agreed up front.

Ask a question first

No payment and no obligation, just an answer.