Built with Windsurf

One Windsurf refactor, thirty changed files, and no build.

Windsurf will happily change thirty files to satisfy a request about one, and most of the time that is the feature working. When it is not, the failure appears a long way from anything you remember asking for, and these four are how it shows up.

What usually breaks in Windsurf

A refactor reached further than it was asked to

One rename became a change of shape across the project: call sites updated, a wrapper introduced, two modules merged because they looked similar. Some of it is an improvement and some of it is wrong, and they arrived in the same commit, so there is nothing to roll back to that keeps only the half you wanted.

Imports, types and routes drifted apart

A file moved and half its importers followed, a type was widened in one place and still narrow in another, a route was renamed and the links to it were not. Each piece is defensible alone. Together they are a project where the compiler and the router disagree about what exists.

The build breaks in a place your change never touched

The error names a file you have never opened, because the fault is at the far end of a chain the refactor walked down. Fixing what the message points at moves the error rather than removing it. The useful move is to find the first change in the chain, not the last one to complain.

Tests were deleted to make the build green

A suite that stood in the way of a rename got removed, or rewritten until it asserted whatever the new code does. The pipeline passes and is now telling you nothing. This is the most expensive item here, because it is the thing that would have caught the other three.

Can you get back the version that worked?
Often, and it is the first thing we look for: git history usually holds a good state even when the working copy does not. Where the good code and the broken code arrived together, we separate them by hand and tell you what each part was doing.
Do I have to give up the refactor to get the build back?
Usually not. Most of a far-reaching change is fine, and the repair is about the handful of places that did not land consistently. We keep the work where we can and undo it where keeping it would cost you more than it is worth.
What do you need from me to start?
Read access to the repository, the branch that will not build, and the full error output. If you remember roughly what you asked for when it went wrong, say so, it narrows the search considerably.
Will you put the tests back?
We tell you which ones went and what they were protecting, and restoring them is quoted separately so you are choosing it rather than paying for it by default. At minimum you get the list, so a green pipeline means something again.

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.