Built with v0

Your v0 app looks finished. Almost nothing behind it is connected.

What v0 produces is good work and it is one half of an application: the part people look at. The other half — where a submission goes, who is signed in, where the records live — was never claimed and is not there. These are the four gaps, in the order they cost you something.

What usually breaks in v0

The form posts to nothing

The fields validate, the button shows a pending state and the success message appears, because the success message is what the component was asked to show. Nothing was ever sent anywhere. Every enquiry since launch has arrived nowhere, and you cannot tell how many because nothing counted them.

Server actions are still stubs

The functions exist with the right names and the right arguments, and their bodies return a hopeful object instead of doing the work. Calls succeed, the interface updates, and a refresh puts everything back to how it was. This is the most disorienting failure on the list, because the app appears to work until you reload it.

Auth is a component, not a session

There is a sign-in screen, a user menu and a signed-in state held in the page. Nothing on the server has been told who you are, so every protected route is protected only by not being linked, and typing its address gets you in. The pages look identical either way, which is why this one gets found late.

The data is still the mock array

The lists, cards and counts read from a constant written next to the component so it had something to show. Edits change it for as long as the tab is open, and everybody who visits sees the same fictional rows. Replacing it is a real piece of work: the shape the interface expects has to become the shape a table can store.

Is any of this a fault in what v0 gave me?
No. It generates interfaces and it did that well; what is missing was never part of the job. The reason it hurts is that a finished-looking screen is indistinguishable from a working feature until somebody tries to use it for real.
Can you keep the design exactly as it is?
That is the point of doing it this way round. The components stay and we put something real behind them, so what you approved visually is what ships. Where a screen assumes data that cannot exist, we come back to you rather than redesigning it quietly.
Is it cheaper to wire this up or to start again?
Wiring up is nearly always cheaper, and the audit gives you the number rather than an opinion. Starting again throws away the one part that is finished.

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.