Built with AI
It works, but you need engineering confidence before putting more customers, money, or development effort behind it.
CODE AUDIT SERVICES FOR AI-BUILT & EXISTING SOFTWARE
Not sure your codebase is safe to keep building on?
Our Codebase & Production Readiness Audit gives you a senior engineering assessment of what is actually wrong, what matters now, and whether you can safely keep investing in the system you already have.
CODEBASE & PRODUCTION READINESS AUDIT
$499 Full engineering audit · Detailed report · Delivered within 1 week*
Six engineering review areas · Validated findings · Severity & remediation priority · Recommended remediation · Detailed audit report
Audit and reporting are included. Implementation or remediation work is scoped separately.Not sure you need a full engineering audit yet? Talk through your situation with our AI CTO first.
*Delivered within 7 days after the agreed scope and required access are confirmed.
Know what's wrong. Know what matters first. Know whether you can safely keep building.
ILLUSTRATIVE AUDIT VIEW
codebase-audit / review WORKFLOW
CODEBASE & PRODUCTION READINESS AUDITEngineering review workspace
An example of how audit dimensions, investigation, and recommendations may be organized. This is not a client result.
Code qualityReview lens
ArchitectureReview lens
Security & dataReview lens
Production readinessReview lens
$ audit.workflow
signal → investigate → validate → prioritize → recommend
_Built with AI?Inherited?Outsourced?Growing fast?First understand what you already have.
WHEN A CODE AUDIT BECOMES USEFUL
Your app works. But you don't know what's happening underneath.
A working application and a production-ready application are not necessarily the same thing.
Inherited a codebase
A previous developer, freelancer, agency, or team created the system. Your current team needs to understand what it inherited.
Development is getting harder
Features that once seemed simple are becoming slower, riskier, or more expensive to implement.
Someone says “rebuild”
Before committing to a major rebuild, you want evidence showing what is actually wrong and whether targeted remediation is possible.
Before building another feature, understand the system you already have.
TWO WAYS TO START
Know you need an audit? Start it. Not sure? Talk it through first.
PRIMARY
CODEBASE & PRODUCTION READINESS AUDIT$499 Full audit · Detailed report · Delivered within 1 week
For products where the engineering decision already matters. We review the agreed application across the core audit areas, investigate meaningful findings, apply the appropriate severity and remediation-priority rules, and deliver a detailed engineering report showing what is wrong and what should happen next.
Full engineering review Detailed audit report Validated findings Severity & remediation priority Why material findings matter Recommended remediation Engineering decision on the path forward
Remediation implementation is not included in the $499 audit.Any hardening, fixing, rescue, or engineering work is scoped separately after the findings are known.
Repository access is requested only after the audit scope is confirmed.FREE CONSULTATION
FREE AI CTO CONSULTATIONFree
For founders with a working or partially working product who are not yet sure whether their situation justifies a full engineering audit.
Keep validatingWatch specific risksStart the $499 Code AuditDiscuss urgent rescue
This is not a free code audit.
The AI CTO consultation does not inspect your repository, verify vulnerabilities, diagnose your architecture, classify code-level findings, or produce the paid engineering audit report.
FREE AI CTO CONSULTATIONShould I investigate this more deeply?Uses your answers and product/business context · No repository review · No verified technical findings · No detailed audit report
$499 CODEBASE & PRODUCTION READINESS AUDITWhat is actually wrong with the system and what should I do?Uses the actual codebase and agreed engineering environment · Validated findings · Severity + priority · Recommended remediation · Detailed engineering report
The $499 audit covers one application within an agreed audit scope. If the system includes unusually large or complex multi-product, multi-repository, or enterprise infrastructure requirements, we will identify that before payment and confirm whether a custom scope is needed. You will know the scope and price before the audit begins.
WHAT WE REVIEW
One codebase. Six engineering lenses.
These six engineering lenses form the core technical review. Product requirements, test material, architecture documentation, and other supporting context are also reviewed where available to establish expected behavior and verification confidence.
scope/architecture.audit AUDIT LENS
REVIEW DIMENSION
Architecture
We evaluate whether the application structure still makes sense for what the product is becoming — not only what it was when development started.
AREAS WE MAY INSPECT
Module boundariesResponsibilitiesCouplingData flowScalability constraintsChange impact
HOW THE AUDIT WORKS
From codebase access to an engineering decision.
The process is structured to move from context and inspection to validated findings, prioritization, and a practical next move.
01
ContextUnderstand the system and its intended behavior
We first understand the product, architecture, current stage, and the concern that triggered the audit. Where available, we also review material that defines expected product behavior.
SRSPRDRequirementsUser storiesAcceptance criteriaTest casesArchitecture docsWorkflows
Goal: establish the best available source of truth for expected product behavior.
02
AccessSet up audit access
We obtain the repositories, environments, and technical context required for the agreed audit scope.
RepositoriesStagingProductionCredentialsArchitecture contextDeployment accessObservabilityRunbooks
Goal: get the agreed scope into a reviewable engineering environment.
03
ReviewInspect the implementation
Engineers review the agreed audit dimensions across the codebase and supporting engineering environment. Where product or verification documentation exists, it is used to understand whether implementation supports expected behavior.
Code qualityArchitectureSecurityProduction readinessDependenciesRequirementsData handlingOperational controls
Goal: inspect the agreed lenses against the live implementation.
04
ValidateInvestigate the findings
Tools, documentation, checklists, and engineering review can surface signals. Engineers investigate them in context before treating them as audit findings.
Tool signalsChecklistsDocsEngineering reviewProduct contextBusiness impactFalse positivesConfirmed findings
Goal: treat only investigated issues as audit findings.
05
PrioritizeDetermine what matters first
Validated findings preserve credible source classification, apply category-specific engineering rules where needed, and receive remediation priority based on product context.
Source classificationEngineering rulesProduct contextExposureUser impactRemediation effortMilestonesStrategic gaps
Goal: rank what to fix first without hiding risk behind a score.
06
DecisionChoose the next engineering move
The findings and recommended actions help you decide whether to keep building, harden, refactor, rescue, or investigate rebuilding.
Keep buildingHardenRefactorRescueInvestigate rebuildingScope next work
Goal: leave with a practical next engineering move.
Keep buildingHardenRefactorRescueInvestigate rebuilding
HUMAN VALIDATION
Scanners find signals. Engineers validate what actually matters.
Automated analysis is part of the review process, not the final judgment. Findings are investigated in the context of the codebase, architecture, product, deployment environment, and potential business impact before they are prioritized.
Source signalSomething deserves attention
Engineering investigationInspect the implementation and surrounding context
Validated findingConfirm whether the issue is real and meaningful
Severity & priorityPreserve source classification, apply engineering rules, and determine remediation priority
Recommended actionConnect the finding to a practical next move
INSIDE OUR PRODUCTION READINESS REVIEW
See the kinds of controls and signals we investigate.
These examples are reserved for screenshots from our internal production-readiness assessment framework and will show some of the controls we inspect during engineering review.
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK / 01
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK EXAMPLE
Security & access controls
Authentication, authorization, secrets, session behavior, and data-access controls are reviewed as part of the production-readiness assessment.
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK / 02
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK EXAMPLE
Deployment & operational readiness
Production readiness includes whether the application can be deployed, monitored, recovered, and operated reliably—not only whether the source code compiles.
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK / 03
ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK EXAMPLE
Code, testing & operational cost
We review whether the codebase can be safely changed, verified, operated, and maintained as the product grows.
These examples come from our internal production-readiness assessment framework and show some of the controls and signals we inspect during engineering review.
WHO REVIEWS YOUR CODEBASE
Senior engineering judgment, supported by the right specialists.
The $499 engagement is the full Codebase & Production Readiness Audit within the agreed scope — including investigation, prioritization, recommendations, and a detailed report.
Senior Engineering Lead
Owns the technical assessment, validation of findings, prioritization, and final engineering recommendations.
Project Manager
Establishes product context, coordinates scope and access requirements, and keeps findings connected to the questions that triggered the review.
SPECIALISTS MAY SUPPORT DEEPER INVESTIGATION
Backend engineering Frontend engineering Cloud / DevOps Security-sensitive implementation Database / infrastructure
The final output remains one consolidated audit — not disconnected specialist reports.
WHAT YOU ACTUALLY GET
A full engineering diagnosis. Documented so you can act on it.
The $499 engagement is the full Codebase & Production Readiness Audit within the agreed scope — including investigation, prioritization, recommendations, and a detailed report.
Detailed Audit Report
A documented engineering assessment of the agreed review scope, findings, supporting context, risks, and recommendations.
Prioritized Findings
Validated findings with source classification or engineering-assessed severity, remediation priority, and why the issue matters.
Remediation & Hardening Direction
What should be addressed immediately, before the next milestone, as planned engineering work, or consciously accepted and monitored.
Engineering Decision
Evidence to support Keep Building · Harden · Refactor · Rescue · Investigate Rebuilding.
The audit diagnoses and documents the work.It does not include implementation of the fixes.
CODEBASE & PRODUCTION READINESS AUDIT$499 · Full audit · Detailed report · Delivered within 1 week
Scope, required access, and expected deliverables are confirmed before the audit begins.
HOW FINDINGS ARE CLASSIFIED
Different risks require different severity rules.
A vulnerability advisory, a linter error, an architectural constraint, and a missing operating capability do not mean the same thing. We keep the classification model appropriate to the finding instead of forcing everything into one score.
DESCRIBES THE FINDINGSeverity
How serious is the finding itself?
USES PRODUCT CONTEXTRemediation priority
When should this product address it?
STEP 1
Where does the classification come from?
Choose the path that matches the type of finding. The underlying methodology stays visible without making every visitor read every technical rule.
ENGINEERING-ASSESSED SEVERITY / MAINTAINABILITY
Can the team safely continue changing the system?
Maintainability findings consider complexity, coupling, duplicated business logic, unclear responsibilities, critical workflows, engineering dependency, defect risk, change blast radius, and future development cost.
ComplexityCouplingDuplicated logicCritical workflowsEngineering dependencyChange blast radius
HOW THIS CATEGORY EARNS SEVERITY
Critical
A core part of the product cannot be changed with reasonable confidence without creating widespread or unpredictable effects.
Business implication: Continuing to build normally may be more expensive or dangerous than addressing the structural problem first.STEP 2 — REMEDIATION PRIORITY
Then we decide when this product should act.
Severity or source classification describes the finding. Engineering then uses product context to determine remediation priority. We do not collapse both concepts into one score.
Actual exposureAffected-path usageCustomer / user impactSecurity consequenceProduction consequenceProduct stageLikelihood of failureBlast radiusOperational dependencyAvailable mitigationRemediation effortBlocks future development?Upcoming milestone
01
IMMEDIATEDeal with this first.
Address before continuing the affected release, production exposure, or critical activity.
Used when the current level of risk is unacceptable.02
BEFORE NEXT MILESTONEDo not carry this into the next stage.
Address before the product enters its next meaningful stage.
A milestone may be major customer onboarding, feature expansion, higher traffic, engineering handover, a major integration, funding or technical due diligence, or a more demanding operating environment.03
PLANNEDPut it on the roadmap.
Schedule into normal engineering work.
The issue is real and worth fixing but does not currently block safe operation or the product's immediate direction.04
ACCEPT & MONITORKnow it. Accept it consciously. Revisit it.
No immediate remediation is required in the current context.
Revisit when usage, exposure, architecture, dependencies, customer requirements, or the product stage changes.Source signalEngineering investigationValidated findingSeverity & remediation priorityRecommended action
High advisory ≠ automatic first priority. A dependency advisory can remain High while engineering investigates whether the affected package and path are actually used, reachable, exposed, mitigated, and safely remediable.
No automated tests ≠ automatic Critical. We first ask whether critical behavior can still be reliably verified through QA evidence, test cases, acceptance criteria, or repeatable verification.
No overall production-readiness score.The audit shows validated findings, source or engineering severity, remediation priority, strategic gaps, and recommended actions instead of hiding risk behind a percentage or letter grade.
EXAMPLE FORMAT — NOT A CLIENT FINDING
6CODEBASE AUDIT
FINDING FORMATFINDING
A known High issue sits on the background-job software we run in production
Dependencies / job processing · @nestjs/bullmq via @nestjs/bull-shared, @nestjs/core
SOURCE CLASSIFICATIONNpm Audit report — High — Vulnerability in @nestjs/bullmq via @nestjs/bull-shared, @nestjs/core — Range: >=10.0.0 — Direct dependency
ENGINEERING ASSESSMENTHigh — we actually use this in live job processing
REMEDIATION PRIORITYBefore next milestone
SOURCE / SIGNAL & INVESTIGATION
A dependency scan flagged a High advisory on @nestjs/bullmq for versions 10 and above, pulled in through @nestjs/bull-shared and @nestjs/core, as a package we install directly. That matches what is in the lockfile. This is not leftover unused software: the worker app uses BullMQ to run background work in production, including webhooks, email, and billing jobs. The job queue itself is internal, but these packages still run inside the live worker process.
WHY IT MATTERS
Those background jobs touch customer and billing activity. If a bad or unexpected job hits the weak spot in this package range, job processing can fail or behave unsafely. Ignoring it because the queue is not on the public internet still leaves a known High issue on a path that already handles real customer work.
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Upgrade @nestjs/bullmq, @nestjs/bull-shared, and @nestjs/core together to a patched release, then redeploy the workers and API. Scan again after the upgrade to confirm the advisory is gone. Keep it on the plan for the next milestone; move it forward if untrusted data can be pushed into these jobs.
WHAT A FINDING SHOULD DO
Show you what matters, why it matters, and what to do next.
A useful source code audit should do more than produce technical observations. The report should connect each validated finding to its consequence and recommended response.
“What could materially hurt the product, and what should we fix first?”
Illustrative finding only. It shows the report format, not a client result.
AI-BUILT SOFTWARE
How it was built ≠ whether the resulting system can be trusted.
HOW IT WAS BUILT
AI-generated
Lovable / Bolt / Cursor
Freelancer
Agency
Internal team
WHAT ACTUALLY MATTERS
Maintainable?
Secure?
Tested?
Observable?
Scalable?
Production-ready?
We audit the resulting system — not the tool that created it.
WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE AUDIT
The report tells you what needs to happen. Fixing it is a separate decision.
The audit diagnoses the system first. Any implementation, hardening, remediation, rescue, or ongoing engineering engagement is scoped separately from the findings.
Not sure yet? Talk to AI CTO for FreeContinue with confidence.
The foundation is reasonable. Continue development while addressing normal improvements.
$6K–$15K
For contained production blockers and high-priority remediation.
Scope and quote are based on the audit findings.$15K–$60K+
For substantial stabilization, technical remediation, architecture work, or selective rebuilding.
Scope depends on the extent of remediation identified during diagnosis.Evidence first.
Recommended only when preserving the affected system is less sensible than replacing significant parts.
$5K–$12K+/month
Ongoing product development and engineering ownership after stabilization.
Your source code is sensitive.
Repository access · credentials · customer data · source-code confidentiality · environments · access removal
Detailed source-code access and confidentiality practices will be published only after the actual 6sense process is confirmed.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Common questions before a codebase review.
The Codebase & Production Readiness Audit is $499 for an application that fits the agreed standard scope. We confirm the scope before payment. If the system requires a substantially larger or more complex review, we tell you before the audit begins.
You receive the full Codebase & Production Readiness Audit and a detailed engineering report containing validated findings, severity or source classification, remediation priority, why material issues matter, recommended remediation, and the recommended next engineering direction.
The audit is delivered within 7 days after the agreed scope and required access are confirmed.
No. The $499 engagement covers the audit, investigation, prioritization, recommendations, and detailed report. Any implementation, hardening, remediation, or rescue work is scoped separately.
The AI CTO consultation uses your answers and business/product context to determine whether deeper technical investigation appears justified. It cannot verify the actual codebase. The $499 audit inspects the real system and provides the detailed engineering diagnosis.
No. We first review your audit intake and confirm the scope. Required access is arranged after the audit scope is agreed.
We evaluate the resulting software against the requirements of the product it needs to support. AI-generated code is context; the maintainability, security, testing, architecture, operability, and production risk of the resulting system are what need to be assessed.
It can give you better evidence for that decision. Rebuilding should not be the default simply because technical debt exists. The useful question is whether important problems can reasonably be hardened, refactored, or repaired while preserving the value already built into the system.
FREE AI CTO CONSULTATION
Start with answers. Escalate to code only when it makes sense.
Talk through your product, how it was built, who depends on it, and what is worrying you. The AI CTO looks for risk signals in your answers and recommends whether deeper engineering investigation appears justified.
Can I launch this?Do I need a code audit?Is customer dependency becoming risky?Can another team take over?What should I investigate first?
This is not a free code audit.
The consultation does not inspect your repository, verify vulnerabilities, diagnose your architecture, classify code-level findings, or claim your app is production-ready.
POSSIBLE NEXT STEPS Keep validating Watch specific risks Start the $499 Code Audit Discuss urgent rescue
ALREADY KNOW YOU NEED CODE-LEVEL VERIFICATION?
6sense AI CTO ONLINE · PRELIMINARY DIAGNOSTIC