A convincing demo and a working product are different things. If your vibe-coded app works in preview but fails after deployment, or another prompt breaks a working feature, start by identifying the failure. Wilde Digital inspects the application and proposes the smallest workable repair. You can buy the inspection without committing to a rebuild.
Start an inquiryAll rates and terms
An inspection fits a founder who can show the source and describe a failed user journey, but cannot yet tell whether the application needs repair or replacement. It is particularly useful when different tools have changed the same project. Access and platform fit are checked before the inspection scope is accepted.
Founders with a stalled application, a confusing repository or a build that behaves differently outside its development preview.
This is not emergency incident response, a penetration-test certification or a promise to support every stack. A new agency build from approved designs belongs under white-label web development. A Shopify catalog or theme problem belongs under Shopify development, where store-specific constraints can be scoped directly.
The first job is to establish which code actually runs and what each user journey depends on. A repository can contain abandoned prototypes, development-only configuration and optimistic success messages. Adding another patch before separating those cases can make a broken path look finished while leaving its underlying failure untouched.
A project may contain an old prototype and a newer implementation with different entry points. The presence of a feature in one directory does not show that the delivered app uses it. Start with package scripts, imports and build configuration, then trace the user journey through the version those commands actually start.
A local proxy can make an API request work in the browser while a packaged application has no usable endpoint. Configuration needs to be checked where it is consumed and where the release build receives it. Supplying a secret to a browser bundle is not a safe substitute for a missing server-side boundary.
A fallback paragraph, a success animation or an optimistic state update can hide a failed request. The user-facing message must describe what actually happened. A repair should preserve useful input, distinguish retryable failures and verify stored state where persistence is part of the promise, rather than simply remove the visible error.
The inspection produces a source and configuration map, a feature-status inventory, evidence-backed findings and a proposed order of work. Each finding distinguishes what was observed from what still needs a runtime check. You receive the report without having to buy implementation, and proposed repairs are not reported as completed fixes.
The quote identifies any separately available work. Guaranteed outcomes, link buying and advertising management are not offered.
Agree access and boundaries, inspect the actual entry points, then reproduce agreed failures where a safe runtime is available. Classify the findings before choosing repairs. A repair proceeds only after its scope and acceptance conditions are approved, and the final report separates passed checks from inaccessible accounts, devices or production environments.
The inspection is $1,500 USD for the agreed application scope. Repair work starts at $3,500 USD for a separately defined group of changes after inspection. Neither number buys an unlimited rescue or guarantees that every feature is recoverable. There is no automatic audit credit, discount or ongoing support commitment.
| Work | Published rate | What the rate covers | What moves the price |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI project rescue inspection | $1,500 USD per agreed inspection Inspection window agreed after access and application scope are confirmed. | Inspection of the agreed application, source and configuration map, feature-status inventory, evidence-backed findings and a prioritized repair recommendation. Runtime checks are distinguished from source inspection. | Repository boundaries, available runtime and access. Implementation, account recovery and security certification are excluded. |
| AI project rescue implementation | From $3,500 USD per agreed repair scope Quoted after the inspection identifies the changes and verification requirements. | A bounded group of repairs selected after inspection, verified against agreed user journeys, with source changes and handover notes. | Dependencies, affected user journeys, test environments and external integrations. New product features and unlimited rescue work are excluded. |
Timelines are indicative planning estimates for the scope described, not delivery commitments. Payment milestones, revision allowance, cancellation and handover terms are agreed in your written quote. Hosting, domains, licenses, stock imagery and advertising spend sit outside the project rate.
The documented example is a read-only inspection of an anonymized conversation-assist application using React, Vite, Capacitor and Express. It produced eight findings, including development-only API routing and misleading failure feedback. No build, server, migration or deployment was run for that example, and its proposed repairs are not presented as successful delivery.
The inspected application accepted a conversation and returned a suggested reply. Its React and Vite client used Capacitor for mobile packaging and an Express service for an external language-model API. A separate Next.js-shaped prototype was not used by the root build; treating both as one product would overstate the shipped client.
One finding concerned native API connectivity: the client could fall back to a relative endpoint supported by a development proxy, while the packaged-build workflow did not supply a native API base. That is a source-supported configuration finding. It is not a claim that an APK was built and tested, because no build or server command ran during this inspection.
Another finding grouped reflected CORS, absent visible rate limiting and missing server-side payload bounds under one trust-boundary problem. The priority recommendation put that boundary before making the external API easier to reach. Fixing connectivity first could make an unprotected paid endpoint more accessible. The exact access policy remained an owner decision.
The inspection also found failure feedback converted into ordinary advice while success haptics still fired, speech functionality present only in an unused prototype, and iOS packaging claims without the corresponding platform directory. These distinctions mattered more than a broad claim that the app was “ninety percent done.” They identified what existed, what was missing and what a runtime check would still need to prove.
The eight findings were prioritized with user impact and dependencies separated from uncertainty and verification difficulty. The worked example then described a repair plan. No client recovery, successful release or commercial outcome is claimed from that record. The value demonstrated is the inspection method and the restraint to avoid calling an unexecuted plan a result.
The handover states what changed, how the agreed user journeys were checked and what remains outside the repair. Source access and configuration requirements remain with the project owner under the quote. Additional features, platform support or maintenance are separate decisions, not work silently added to a rescue while its original acceptance conditions move.
A useful rescue leaves fewer unknowns, not a larger backlog disguised as completion. The final record should identify the exact journeys that now pass and the dependencies that remain. Search problems in an otherwise working site may instead need technical SEO; they are not a reason to rebuild its application.
Send the tool name, the current source repository or export, and the user journey that fails. Acceptance depends on the actual framework, dependencies, access and agreed scope—not the builder name alone. A preview link is useful context, but it does not replace source access or establish that every part of the app can be repaired.
No. The inspection is designed to answer whether repair is sensible before you authorize it. The answer may be a narrower product, a repair, a replacement or a dependency that must be resolved first. Paying for inspection does not commit you to buying implementation.
No. You need to describe what a user should be able to do and provide appropriate access to the project. The report explains findings through their impact and next action, alongside technical evidence. Decisions about budget, accounts, data and product scope still remain yours.
Not by default. Working parts should be kept when they support the agreed product. A replacement needs a specific reason, such as an unsupported dependency or a structure that makes the required change impractical. It is quoted and approved separately rather than introduced as an unannounced cleanup.
Source inspection can still establish some facts, but runtime claims remain unverified. The report names missing configuration, accounts, devices or services. You decide whether obtaining those prerequisites belongs in a follow-up scope. A read-only finding is never described as a reproduced production failure unless that failure was actually observed.
No. The historical self-serve kit and its existing download links remain separate. This page describes a done-for-you inspection and optionally agreed implementation. Purchasing or holding the old material does not imply that a repair engagement, audit credit or ongoing support is included.
Tell me what the app should do, what happens instead, which AI coding tool or builder was used, its stack and whether the source is available. Name the user journey that matters most and any deadline. Do not put passwords, production keys or customer data in the inquiry; appropriate access follows an agreed inspection scope.