AI Check for Cursor & Claude Code
Get your Cursor and Claude Code project reviewed
With coding agents, what used to take a team months now takes weeks. The code works – but every session built it a little differently. We check whether it can become a product you can develop further, operate and sell.
Typical findings
What we often find in Cursor & Claude Code projects
Architecture drift
Every session solves problems its own way: three ways to load data, two kinds of error handling, inconsistent structures.
Files that do everything
Features grow wherever code already is – until one file combines routing, logic and data access.
Tests that test nothing
High coverage on paper, but tests that only check mocks or were adjusted to the code until they turned green.
Duplicates and dead paths
Near-identical functions in several places; old attempts at a solution that were never removed.
Outdated or invented packages
Libraries with known vulnerabilities, unnecessary dependencies or package names that don’t exist as such.
Security only on request
Access checks, input validation and limits are missing wherever nobody explicitly asked for them.
How we review code from coding agents
With code from Cursor, Claude Code, Copilot or Windsurf, the risk rarely sits in a single line. It sits in the big picture: in structures that were never planned but grew session by session. That’s why we start with the map.
- Architecture map. Which modules exist, who calls whom, where do business logic and data access live? This shows where responsibilities blur. The article Why AI-built apps don’t scale describes the typical patterns.
- Automated analysis. Complexity, duplicates, unused code, dependencies with known vulnerabilities – as a basis, not a verdict.
- Tests under the microscope. We read tests, not just coverage: do they check behaviour, or do they merely confirm the code?
- Security. Access rights, secrets, inputs, limits – systematically through the ten most common flaws.
- Operations and data model. Does the app run on more than one server? Does it know business customers? Are there backups, monitoring, migrations?
What you get
In the Quick Check, a traffic light per area and a recommendation. In the Deep Dive, a report with findings, their locations and a roadmap in the order that gets you to your goal – plus rules for your agent so the next weeks of code don’t reintroduce the same problems. The sample report shows an example.
FAQ
Which languages and frameworks do you cover?
Typically TypeScript/JavaScript (React, Next.js, Vue, Node), Python (FastAPI, Django), PHP (Laravel) and Java – with the usual databases and cloud services. For anything unusual we’ll tell you up front whether we’re the right fit.
Doesn’t an automated review tool do this?
Tools find individual bugs in code. They don’t judge whether the architecture fits your goal, whether tests check the right things or whether the app can represent 500 business customers. We use tools – but people make the call.
We keep building with agents. Does the report help?
Yes. Besides the roadmap you get concrete conventions for your project – structure, patterns, don’ts – that you can give your agent as rules, for example in CLAUDE.md or the Cursor rules.
How long does a Deep Dive take?
One to two weeks, depending on scope. The Quick Check (3 working days) shows up front whether the Deep Dive is worth it and how big it will be.