The app looks finished. One important step still fails.
A user signs in and lands on the wrong screen. A form says saved, but the record disappears. Checkout completes, yet paid access never arrives. Each symptom deserves a trace through the actual application before another feature is added.
I review AI-generated apps and help turn a stuck build into a defined engineering job. Bring the public URL, the failing step and the result you expected. The first conversation establishes whether the problem fits, what access a review would need and what the initial scope should cover. Review work and implementation are agreed before either begins.
What a production readiness review examines
We start with the primary user journey, the deployed version and the systems carrying its data. A focused review can include authentication, record ownership, persistence, payments, integrations, deployment settings and visible failure handling. The agreed scope names which of these are included.
The output should make the next decision easier: what failed, how to reproduce it, why the available evidence points to a particular change, and what would prove that change worked. A successful build alone does not establish that a customer can complete the journey.
- Reproduction steps and the affected user or role.
- Expected behaviour, observed behaviour and supporting evidence.
- A prioritised repair plan with exclusions and open questions.
- Acceptance checks, deployment responsibility and a handoff plan.
Inspect a sample review before you enquire
The sample app repair review follows a fictional request that received a success response without being stored. Its accompanying local example reproduces that failure, then checks the saved record after a server restart. This is a synthetic teaching example, not a claimed client rescue or a live Lovable assessment.
You or a technical teammate can download the runnable checks and read the recorded results. Run the file with Node 22 or later using the command in its opening comment. It uses temporary files and loopback requests; no platform account or payment is contacted.
Repair, selectively rewrite or rebuild?
A targeted repair makes sense when the flow, data and remaining structure can support the agreed finish line. A selective rewrite may be appropriate when one component cannot. Rebuilding everything needs a wider reason, such as a fundamental data or operating constraint that a smaller change cannot resolve.
I do not promise to save every codebase. The useful outcome of the initial review is a decision grounded in the project, including a recommendation to stop or reduce scope when that is the sensible path.
Working together from Canada
I am based in Winnipeg and work remotely with founders and teams across Canada and internationally. You work directly with the person reviewing and building the software. Estimates depend on the actual project, integrations and release responsibilities. Hosting, third-party usage and ongoing support need explicit treatment alongside the build.
Repository access, hosting accounts, intellectual property, rollout and handoff belong in the written agreement. A review is scoped engineering work, not a security certification or a promise of production readiness for unchecked parts of an app.
Is your project built with Lovable?
The Lovable app rescue service covers a more specific hiring path. For a failure you want to investigate first, use the guides for missing saved data, Supabase login problems or Stripe webhook failures.
You can also inspect my product work or compare a fresh prototype build if the project needs a new first version. To start, describe the app and the step that fails. Keep passwords and private customer records out of the initial message.