// engineering · review·new

// engineering · review · new

AI will build it fast. It will not tell you what it got wrong.

Pixelworx reviews what you have, the code and the interface, and tells you honestly whether it will hold up. Maybe you built it yourself with Cursor, Lovable, Claude Code, v0, Bolt, or Replit. Maybe someone else built it years ago and you are taking it over. Either way, not a linter. Not an AI grading its own homework. A developer who has shipped production software reading what you have.

Get a Build Review → How it works ↓

build-review.stream live

09:14 audit.cursor auth flow → 3 findings · 1 blocking br.1
09:02 studio comprehension over bug count, always —
08:47 rules.claude setup → project instructions written, tested br.1
08:31 audit.lovable rls policy gap flagged before launch br.2
08:12 handoff annotated pr → client merged same day br.2
07:58 studio note → manual review, no automated grading —

$ awaiting next audit manual review · human

// the problem

Why “it works on my machine” is not the bar anymore.

AI coding tools got good enough that anyone can ship something that runs. They did not get good enough to tell you when the thing they built will leak data, break under real traffic, or quietly make the wrong decision. A 2013 Microsoft study found bug-catching was never the real value of review anyway, comprehension was. That gap is exactly what a linter cannot close and a person can.

Get a Build Review →

Built and shipped alone

No second read before it reached customers
Comments only line up with what the AI meant to do
Security defaults never questioned
Nobody but the tool that wrote it understands it
Findings, if any, buried in a wall of linter output
Interface never checked against what the code actually does

Reviewed by Pixelworx

A developer reads it before your customers do
Findings ranked by what actually matters
Plain-language report, not a linter dump
You understand your own product again
Code and interface reviewed together, not separately
Delivered however you can actually use it

// what's included

What Build Review includes.

Two phases, use one or both. Setup gets the AI tool working the way you actually need it to. Review keeps a real developer checking the output as you go.

02 phases

Setup

Before you write a line, we configure the tool to help you. Project instructions, rules files, and templates tuned to how your product actually needs to be built, so the AI stops guessing and starts working the way you want it to.

Rules & instructions files Project-specific templates Cursor, Claude Code, and others One-time engagement

Review

Ongoing manual review of what you have actually built, code and interface both. You get it back in whatever form is useful to you: annotated in the code, a written report, a ticket in your tracker. What matters is that a person who builds software for a living looked at it and told you the truth.

Code + interface review Delivered your way Plain-language findings Recurring or one-off

// who this is for

Built it yourself, or inherited it. Either way.

Built it yourself with an AI tool, or inherited it from someone else, the review works the same way. If AI is doing more of the maintaining or extending these days, whatever the project's history, this is for you.

09 starting points

Lovable Supabase auth, RLS policy, and generated data model review

v0 Component structure, server actions, UI-to-logic mismatch

Bolt Dependency sanity, build config, StackBlitz assumptions

Replit Agent Repo structure, secrets handling, scaffolded vs. written

Cursor Rules-file setup, codebase consistency, agent behavior

Claude Code Project instructions, generated test coverage, drift

ChatGPT Copy-pasted code that never saw the rest of your codebase

No-code MVPs What happens when the platform's assumptions become yours

Already built Inherited from a previous developer or agency, or built years ago, now maintained or extended with AI helping

// how you engage

Two ways to work with us.

Pick the one that fits where you are. We will walk through what each delivers before you commit to anything.

02 paths

// one-time

Build Review

A single, focused pass on what you have built so far. Good for a pre-launch check or a gut check before you show it to a customer or investor.

Code + interface review
Written findings
One round of follow-up questions

// ongoing

Build Partner

Ongoing review as you keep building. We stay familiar with your product instead of relearning it every time, so findings get sharper and cheaper to act on the longer we work together.

Recurring review cadence
Priority turnaround
Setup included
Direct line to a developer

Tell us what you built

The tool, the stage it is at, and what is actually worrying you. No wrong answer here, that is what the review is for.

We review it

Code and interface, read by a developer, ranked by what actually matters instead of a raw list of every possible nitpick.

You get it back your way

Annotated in the code, a written report, or a ticket in your tracker. Whichever one you will actually use.

We stay on it

Build Partner clients keep the same reviewer across builds, so findings get sharper and cheaper to act on the longer we work together.

// frequently asked

Frequently asked questions about Build Review.

05 questions

Is this an automated tool? +

No. Build Review is a person reading your code and your interface, not a linter or an AI grading its own output. A 2013 Microsoft study on code review found that catching bugs was never the main value of a review anyway, comprehension was. Automated tools already catch most surface-level issues. What they cannot do is tell you whether the thing you built will actually hold up, and that is what a manual review is for.

What if you find something serious? +

You get a plain-language explanation of what it is, why it matters, and what fixing it involves, ranked by severity so you know what to act on first. If it is something you can fix yourself with the AI tool you already use, we tell you how. If it needs more than a review, that is usually the point where Prototype to Production takes over.

Do you need access to my whole codebase? +

Only to what you want reviewed. Most clients share a repo link or export, or add us as a collaborator scoped to what is relevant. We will tell you exactly what access is needed before you grant anything.

What is the difference between this and Prototype to Production? +

Build Review is proactive: we look at what you are building as you build it, and catch problems before they become expensive. Prototype to Production is reactive: it is the full rebuild when a prototype has outgrown what review alone can fix, whether that is scale, security, or architecture. Most clients start with Build Review. Some of them eventually need Prototype to Production too.

Can you review something built on a tool not listed here? +

Almost always, yes. The tools we list are the ones we see most often, but the review itself is about the code and the interface, not the platform that generated them. Tell us what you built it with and we will let you know if there is anything specific to that tool we should flag.

What if my site or app was not built with an AI tool at all? +

That is a normal case for this service, not an edge case. Plenty of clients have a site or app someone else built for them years ago, or something they inherited when they took over a business, and they are now using AI to help maintain or extend it themselves. The review works the same way regardless of how the project started: we look at what exists today and tell you honestly whether it holds up.

// pairs well with

Related services.

Build Review is the proactive end of the same work Prototype to Production handles reactively. These are the services it most often connects to.

03 disciplines

// engineering · wedge№ 01

Prototype to production

When review turns up more than a fix, when the foundation itself needs to change, this is where that work happens.

Read discipline

// engineering · ai№ 02

AI development

Want something built for you instead of reviewed after the fact? This is that.

Read discipline

// engineering№ 03

Third-party integrations

The systems your reviewed build eventually has to talk to: payment, CRM, analytics, internal tools.

Read discipline

// tell us what you built

Built something you are not 100% sure about?

Send us what you have and what is worrying you. We will tell you honestly what we see.

Get a Build Review → [email protected]