You built it in Cursor and it works on your machine. We review the whole codebase, fix the structure and security, add the tests that matter and ship it, without taking the code away from you.
Cursor is different from the hosted builders. It is an editor, so the code is already in your repository and on your machine, which is a good place to start. The risk is a different one. An app written across hundreds of AI sessions often has nobody holding the architecture in their head, including the person who prompted it.
So we find the same things: three different ways of doing one job, logic copied rather than shared, dependencies added and never used, error handling on the paths that were tested and nowhere else, and no tests at all. The app works today. Nobody can say with confidence what will break when it changes tomorrow.
An engineer reads the whole project and reports on structure, duplication, dead code and risk, in plain language.
One way of doing each job, shared logic in one place, and clear boundaries between parts of the app.
Authorization checks, input validation, rate limiting and secrets handled properly.
Coverage on the flows that carry money and data, so a change cannot silently break them.
Automated checks and a repeatable deploy, so shipping is routine rather than risky.
Project rules and a review step, so the code your tools write next matches the structure we put in place.
We read the code and give you a written report: keep, fix or rebuild, with a fixed scope.
Duplication removed and boundaries set, without changing how the product behaves.
Security gaps closed and tests added around the flows that matter most.
Pipeline, monitoring and launch, under your accounts.
The mistakes we see most often, so you can avoid paying for them.
If it was accepted without being read, it is unreviewed code in production. That is a risk whoever or whatever wrote it.
Each session solves the problem fresh. Over months that produces parallel patterns that all have to be maintained.
Local runs hide missing environment settings, build differences and concurrency problems that only appear under real use.
Without tests you find out what broke from your users. A small, well-chosen test suite changes that.
Yes. We review the full codebase, fix structural and security problems, add tests and a deployment pipeline, and launch it under your accounts. The repository stays yours throughout.
No. Much of it is perfectly good. The risk is code that nobody has read, because problems hide in it until real users find them. A review by an experienced engineer is what turns generated code into dependable code.
Yes, and we expect you to. We leave project rules, tests and an automated check in place so new AI-written changes follow the structure and cannot quietly break what works.
Usually to fix it. A Cursor project tends to be real, working software that needs structure rather than replacement. Where a part is beyond saving, the review says so before you commit budget.
The review itself is short. The work that follows depends on what it finds, and you get a fixed scope and timeline before it starts.
Yes, read access for the review. Everything stays in your repository and your accounts. We do not move your code anywhere you do not control.
The full ai app rescue service this specialism is part of.
Lovable gave you a good-looking app fast. We make it safe and real: database rules.
Bolt.new got you a working prototype in the browser. We give it a real server.
v0 gave you an interface that looks finished. We keep it.
Replit let you build and host in one place. We make what you built safe for real users.
appico is an independent software studio. We are not affiliated with, endorsed by or a partner of Cursor or Anysphere. Product names belong to their owners and are used here only to describe the work we do on apps built with them.