Service · fixed fee

Your AI-built app works. Now make it safe to put customers on.

Your Lovable, Bolt or Cursor build works — is it safe? A $750 diagnostic credited in full against fixed-price remediation: found, fixed, verified.

Apps built with Lovable, Bolt, Cursor or v0 usually work — and routinely ship with exposed keys, missing row-level security and no rate limiting. For $750 diagnostic, credited in full I read the codebase and hand you a findings register; the fee is credited in full against a fixed-price remediation, so the diagnosis is never the product.

$750 diagnostic, credited in full· diagnostic 1 week · remediation 2–4 weeks

Half on start, half on delivery of the evidence pack. Milestone billing above $8,000. Evidence pack or no fee: every engagement ends with a dated evidence pack. If I don’t deliver it, you don’t pay the closing half.

Email the deskFull price ladder →

What is this for, exactly?

Founders and agencies whose AI-built application (Lovable, Bolt, Cursor, v0) works — and is about to carry real customers.

What do you get?

  • Findings register: every defect with severity, exploitability and reproduction
  • The remediation itself — fixes applied in your codebase, with the diff
  • A verification pass re-testing every finding after the fix
  • A written assurance note: what was fixed, what residual risk was accepted, what was out of scope

Why does this problem exist at all?

Because generation quality and security quality are different things, and only one of them is visible in a demo.

AI-generated code, measured

The tools are excellent at making software exist. Making it safe is still a person’s job.

That pass rate has stalled across four annual snapshots and more than 100 models — it is not a gap that the next model release closes.

When is the right moment for this?

Three triggers, in practice: you are about to put real customers on the app; a paying customer or investor just asked a security question you could not answer in writing; or something already went wrong and you got away with it. The wrong moment is after the incident that you don't get away with — at that point you need an incident desk, not a diagnostic.

What does “verified” mean here?

Every finding in the register is re-tested after its fix, and the verification pass is part of the deliverable — not a promise that nothing can ever go wrong, but proof that the specific doors I found are closed. The assurance note then states plainly what was fixed, what residual risk you accepted, and what was out of scope. That document is written to be shown to the customer or investor who asked.

What does the price not include?

Stated before you ask, because a fixed price is only fixed if its edges are published.

  • The diagnostic is never sold uncredited — it exists to price the fix
  • Remediation is quoted fixed after the diagnostic; the $750 is credited in full against it
  • Production hardening at scale (load testing, observability, caching) is a separate fixed-price sprint, quoted only after a diagnostic

Questions buyers actually ask

Our platform already runs free security scans. Why pay for a diagnostic?

Use the free scans — genuinely. They find the defects their rules recognise. What they don’t do is read your application the way an attacker or a diligence reviewer does: authorisation logic, tenant isolation, what your keys can reach, what happens at the rate limit you don’t have. The $750 diagnostic is a human read of your actual codebase, and it is credited in full against the fix.

Why don’t you sell the audit on its own?

Because a findings list without a fix is homework, and the market is full of free or near-free scans that produce exactly that. The diagnostic exists to scope and price the remediation precisely. If you only want a report, other suppliers will sell you one; I sell the repaired codebase with proof.

Will you rebuild the app “properly”?

No — the app you have works, and rewriting working software is usually the most expensive way to feel better about it. Remediation fixes the specific defects in the findings register, verifies each fix, and documents residual risk honestly. If something genuinely needs re-architecture, the assurance note says so, with reasons, and you decide.

What kinds of defects come up in AI-built apps?

The recurring set: secrets committed or exposed client-side, missing row-level security or tenant checks, no rate limiting, unvalidated input on server routes, permissive CORS, and error handling that leaks internals. Independent measurement backs the pattern: in Veracode’s 2026 testing, barely half of AI-generated code passed security checks, and output touching user-facing HTML passed cross-site-scripting checks only a fraction of the time.

Our agency built it. Should they be on the call?

Ideally, yes — and I work with agencies directly as well. The findings register is written to be actionable by whoever maintains the code, and “builder present” usually halves the remediation time. Nothing in the report is written to embarrass anyone; it is written to get fixed.

Last reviewed· Every dated claim on this page links to its source.

Which obligation is closest?

Tell me the deadline you are looking at and what your site does. You get a straight answer about whether it applies to you, and a fixed price if it does.

Email the deskSee every date

Direct to hello@sophura.com · one person, named, who answers. I don’t give legal advice.