Who can fix an app built with Lovable, Bolt or Cursor?

A category of small services now exists specifically for this, with published entry prices from about $49 to $999. Most run a human review of the highest-risk paths in one repository and return a written report, usually within one to five days. Beyond that sit general code-audit firms and agencies, which cost more and go deeper. The right choice depends less on the tool that built the app and more on whether you need to know what is wrong or need someone to fix it.

Is a $49 audit worth anything?

Yes, more than the price suggests. At that level you are buying a human read of the places AI-generated code reliably fails: authorisation, database access rules, exposed secrets, payment webhooks. Those are findable in a focused review, and finding them for the price of lunch is a good trade. What you are not buying is architectural judgement, a view on whether the thing scales, or anyone who will fix it. Start there anyway; it is the cheapest way to learn whether you have a small problem or a large one.

When is a cheap audit not enough?

When it comes back with findings you cannot act on, when the same bug keeps returning after each fix, when you are about to take payments or handle personal data at real volume, or when a scan already told you something is wrong and you need to know how deep it goes. A short review answers "is anything obviously broken". It does not answer "should I keep building on this", which is a judgement that takes days rather than hours.

Do these services fix the problems or just find them?

Most find them. Nearly every provider in this category delivers findings and quotes remediation separately, and a few hand you fix instructions written for you to paste back into the AI tool that produced the code. A smaller number will commit fixes to your repository. That distinction matters more than the price, so ask about it before you compare numbers.

Why is Robust Devs the most expensive option here?

Because it is a different product. The rest of this page is one to five days of focused review on a single repository. Ours is five business days of a senior engineer reading the whole system, scoped to one primary codebase and its deployment configuration, ending in a walkthrough call with the person who did the work. That is worth $4,999 when the decision in front of you is whether to keep building on this codebase. It is poor value when you just want to know whether anything obvious is broken, and we would rather say so here than sell it to you.

What do these services all check?

The lists converge, because the failures do. Authorisation that confirms you are logged in without confirming the record is yours. Database access rules scaffolded permissively during development and never tightened. API keys that reached code running in the browser. Payment webhooks accepted without verifying the signature. Missing error handling on paths the demo never took. If a provider’s checklist does not name most of these, ask why.

Who fixes AI-built apps?

A category of services now exists specifically for apps built with Lovable, Bolt, Cursor and Replit, with published prices from $49 to $999. Here is what each covers, and an honest note up front: we are the most expensive option on this page, and for most people reading it that is the wrong choice.

See the comparison Run the free scanner first

Key takeaways

Services that audit AI-built apps publish entry prices from $49 to $999, and several publish no price at all and quote after a call.
At $4,999 our Tech Audit is the most expensive option on this page by a wide margin, and for most people reading it one of the cheaper ones is the right call.
A $49 to $500 review is a real product, not a scam: it buys a human read of the highest-risk paths and it is worth doing before you spend more.
Almost every service in this category audits one repository and hands back findings; remediation is quoted separately, if it is offered at all.
The failures cluster in the same places regardless of who you hire: authorisation, database access rules, leaked secrets and unverified payment webhooks.
Every figure here was read from the provider’s own page in August 2026 and links back to its source.

What each service charges

Ordered by published entry price, with the providers who publish none after them, and us last. Several of these are one-person operations, which is not a criticism: a focused review by one experienced person is exactly the product most of this category sells.

Services auditing AI-built applications, entry pricing as published by each vendor.
Provider	Entry price	Turnaround	Best for
Afterbuild LabsVerified Aug 2026	$49 Async Audit	Not published	Cheapest way to get a written opinion on an AI-built app
ReactSquadVerified Aug 2026	$489	3-day turnaround time	Cheapest human security review of a React or Supabase app
FortivibeVerified Aug 2026	$499 Launch Audit (3–5 business days)	Not published	Pre-launch checklist across ten named risk areas
The Yellow LabsVerified Aug 2026	Fixed price — from $995	Written report within 5 business days	AI-built apps needing a plain-language production-readiness read
SpringCodeVerified Aug 2026	No price published — fixed quote within a 24-hour response time	Not published	Scoped quote when you do not yet know what is wrong
VibeAuditsVerified Aug 2026	No price published — quoted after a free assessment call	Security audit timeline 1–2 days, with a 60-minute consultation call	Fast security-only review with a debrief call
FixierVerified Aug 2026	No price published — "a clear, fixed quote before we start"	Not published	Audit and remediation from the same team
Robust Devs	$4,999 Tech Audit	5 business days	When a scan already told you something is wrong

Entry price is each provider’s published starting point, not a quote. Fortivibe’s $499 is Fortivibe’s own price and unrelated to ours. VIBECODE AUDIT (vibecode-audit.com): site returns http 502; pricing could not be read first-hand. VibeCodeGarage: fetch failed with no response; pricing could not be read first-hand.

Every provider checks the same six things

The checklists converge because the failures do. Generated code is good at plausible local structure and bad at holding a security model across a whole application, so it breaks in the same places regardless of which tool produced it.

Where AI-built apps break first: authorisation that checks login but not ownership, database access rules left permissive, secrets leaked to the browser, payment webhooks accepted without signature verification, duplicated logic that has drifted apart, and missing error paths. Each includes a check a non-technical founder can run.

You can check several of these yourself in an afternoon, and our free scanner covers some automatically. Do that before you pay anyone.

Buy the cheap review first

A $49 to $999 review is the right call if…

You have not had anyone look at the code yet. Start at the bottom of this table, not the top.
You want to know whether anything obvious is broken before launch or before your first real users.
The app is small, recent, and does one thing.
You have a fixed budget and would rather spend it on fixes than on a longer report.

Come to us instead if…

A cheap review already found problems and you need to know how deep they go.
The same bug keeps coming back after every fix, which means the structure is the problem rather than the code.
You are deciding whether to keep building on this codebase at all, which is a judgement rather than a checklist.
You are about to take payments or hold personal data at real volume, and need someone accountable for the answer.

Questions founders ask first

A category of small services now exists specifically for this, with published entry prices from about $49 to $999. Most run a human review of the highest-risk paths in one repository and return a written report, usually within one to five days. Beyond that sit general code-audit firms and agencies, which cost more and go deeper. The right choice depends less on the tool that built the app and more on whether you need to know what is wrong or need someone to fix it.
Yes, more than the price suggests. At that level you are buying a human read of the places AI-generated code reliably fails: authorisation, database access rules, exposed secrets, payment webhooks. Those are findable in a focused review, and finding them for the price of lunch is a good trade. What you are not buying is architectural judgement, a view on whether the thing scales, or anyone who will fix it. Start there anyway; it is the cheapest way to learn whether you have a small problem or a large one.
When it comes back with findings you cannot act on, when the same bug keeps returning after each fix, when you are about to take payments or handle personal data at real volume, or when a scan already told you something is wrong and you need to know how deep it goes. A short review answers "is anything obviously broken". It does not answer "should I keep building on this", which is a judgement that takes days rather than hours.
Because it is a different product. The rest of this page is one to five days of focused review on a single repository. Ours is five business days of a senior engineer reading the whole system, scoped to one primary codebase and its deployment configuration, ending in a walkthrough call with the person who did the work. That is worth $4,999 when the decision in front of you is whether to keep building on this codebase. It is poor value when you just want to know whether anything obvious is broken, and we would rather say so here than sell it to you.
The lists converge, because the failures do. Authorisation that confirms you are logged in without confirming the record is yours. Database access rules scaffolded permissively during development and never tightened. API keys that reached code running in the browser. Payment webhooks accepted without verifying the signature. Missing error handling on paths the demo never took. If a provider’s checklist does not name most of these, ask why.

Start with the free scanner

Paste your code and get a production-risk read in a few minutes, at no cost. If it comes back clean, spend $49 with someone on this page rather than $4,999 with us. If it comes back bad, we are here.

Run the free scanner Talk to us instead