AI code review

AI code review is a structured pre-release pass on repositories where agents wrote or refactored large sections of code. PunkSolid combines automated scans with human inspection so you know what must be fixed before traffic—or before a migration cutover.

What we examine

Reviews typically cover:

• Authentication and session handling
• Secret storage and environment documentation
• Dependency versions and known-risk packages
• Missing or misleading tests on revenue-critical paths
• Deployment scripts and rollback assumptions
• SEO-sensitive routes when the repo powers a public site

The pass complements—not replaces—your own QA. Our methodology describes ongoing automated checks we use on PunkSolid properties; client repos adopt what fits their stack.

When teams book review

Common triggers include a demo-to-production deadline on a vibe-coded prototype, an internal team that adopted agents without security review, or a migration branch that touched thousands of templates. Full implementation after review flows through vibe code to production or stack-specific build services.

Delivery engagements that center Claude Code are described under Claude Code development.

Tied to migration proof

Large public sites cannot afford silent regressions. The healthcare WordPress rebuilds case study shows the verification bar for clinical properties: tracking tools, forms, and Search Console health after launch. Review on a migration branch should catch broken redirects or missing metadata before DNS—not after phone volume drops.

We rebuilt nine sites across client and network work; traffic and lead figures from those programs stay confidential.

Specs and follow-through

We encourage spec-driven development so reviewers can trace requirements to tests. Findings reference specs when they exist; when they do not, the report lists missing acceptance criteria as their own risk.

Contact to schedule access and agree review depth. We do not publish fixed review prices without seeing repository size and compliance needs.

Related reading

Cursor rules guide helps teams constrain agents before review. Agents.md guide documents repo-local agent instructions we look for during audit.

Severity and prioritization

Findings are grouped so product owners can decide what blocks launch versus what belongs in the next sprint. Critical items usually involve auth bypass, secret exposure, SQL injection surfaces, or irreversible data loss on deploy. Medium items might be missing indexes, absent monitoring, or duplicated dependencies. Low items include style inconsistencies that do not affect runtime.

Sample versus full-tree review

Small startups sometimes need a sample pass on the modules launching first—checkout, signup, admin. Enterprise migrations may require full-tree review plus redirect diff checks against the signed URL inventory. Scope is fixed in writing before access so reviewers do not miss agreed surfaces.

After the report

Your team may implement fixes, hire us for remediation, or combine AI code review with a second pass after changes land; you always keep code ownership of the repository we reviewed. We do not imply that a single review guarantees production safety forever; it is a point-in-time assessment.

Migration-specific checks

When the repo powers a public site move, reviewers compare canonical tags, redirect tests, and sitemap generators against the pre-launch checklist used on PunkSolid migrations. The healthcare WordPress rebuilds program is the scale reference: thousands of URLs per site, multiple tracking vendors, forms under compliance review.

Vendor independence

Cursor and Claude Code are named only to describe provenance of diffs. PunkSolid is independent. Review timelines and fees are not listed here; they follow repository size and compliance needs identified during intake via contact.

Access and confidentiality

Review agreements cover how long we retain clones, whether findings may reference your brand publicly, and who on your side receives the report. We do not use client repos to train models. If healthcare or other regulated data appears in fixtures, use sanitized dumps for review unless compliance approves broader access.

Re-review triggers

Major refactors after the first review—especially agent-generated ones—warrant a second pass or a narrowed delta review. We scope re-runs explicitly so you are not paying for duplicate full-tree work when only checkout changed.

Pairing with methodology

The same automated link and type checks described in methodology should stay enabled after review so regressions surface before the next agent session. Review is a snapshot; CI is the ongoing guardrail your team owns post-handoff.

Bring your launch checklist to intake so reviewers align with what your executives will ask on go-live day.