AI writes the code.
Senior engineers verify it.
Independent human review for AI-generated software. Ship faster without letting hidden security, architecture and business-logic risks into production.
AI accelerated coding.
Review became
the bottleneck.
AI agents now generate features, fixes and refactors far faster than traditional teams can verify them. A single developer with an AI tool can open more pull requests in a week than a senior reviewer can properly read.
The danger is that AI-generated code usually looks clean and professional. The style is consistent, the tests pass, the diff reads well. The problems hide underneath: subtle business-logic mistakes, missing authorization checks, unsafe migrations and architectural decisions that make sense locally but break the system globally.
When production speed outgrows review capacity, risk compounds silently. Code Assurance restores the missing verification layer without hiring, onboarding or slowing your team down.
What Every Review Covers
Functional Correctness
Does the code actually do what the product needs, including edge cases the AI never considered?
Architecture
System design, boundaries and hidden effects on other parts of the codebase.
Application Security
Authentication, permissions, data exposure and common vulnerability classes.
Database Safety
Schema changes, migrations, data integrity and rollback paths.
API Compatibility
Contract changes, integrations and breaking effects on existing consumers.
Performance
Query patterns, memory behavior and scalability under real load.
Test Coverage
Whether the tests verify behavior that matters, not just lines that exist.
Maintainability
Technical debt, duplication and how hard the code will be to change in six months.
How It Works
Connect
You securely connect a GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket or Azure DevOps repository, read-only where possible.
Understand
Your dedicated reviewer studies the architecture, documentation, standards and business context before the first review.
Review
Critical pull requests receive detailed human review, supported by automated testing and security analysis.
Decide
You receive a clear verdict and specific required corrections. The merge decision always stays with your team.
Every review ends in a document, not an opinion.
Each reviewed pull request produces a structured report: an overall risk assessment, one of three defined verdicts, critical issues, required changes, suggested improvements and test coverage gaps. Signed by a named reviewer with stated expertise and completion time.
Verdicts are deliberately precise: No Blocking Findings Identified, Changes Required or High Risk: Not Recommended for Merge. We document the risk. You keep full control of the merge.
Launch Offerings
AI Code Health Check
- Full examination of an existing AI-built codebase by a senior engineer
- Security, architecture, data-safety and maintainability findings, ranked by production risk
- Written report with required fixes and a prioritized remediation plan
- Pricing scales with size: small project from €1,500, mid-size production product €3,000 to €5,000, large monorepo or multi-service system priced individually
- Delivered in 5 to 10 business days depending on codebase size
Critical PR Review Pilot
- Ongoing human review of your most critical pull requests for one month
- Dedicated primary reviewer with a qualified backup, so illness or holidays never break the SLA
- Standard pull requests reviewed within one business day
- Every review ends in a structured report with a defined verdict
- Natural upgrade path: continuous monthly plans open to pilot clients first
Standard PR, up to 500 changed lines
Medium PR, up to 1,200 changed lines
Above 1,200 changed lines, assessed and quoted before review
Generated files, lock files and automated migrations are not counted
Automated tools find patterns. Senior engineers understand consequences.
Static analysis and AI reviewers are part of our process. They are fast, tireless and good at known patterns. We use them for exactly that.
But a pattern matcher cannot know that this specific endpoint handles money, that this migration runs against a table with 40 million rows, or that "delete account" in your product has a legal retention requirement. That knowledge lives in context, and context is what an experienced engineer brings.
The final review is always completed by a named human engineer who understands product intent, system context and real-world production risk, and who signs the verdict with their expertise behind it.
Security & Confidentiality
NDA available before any code is shared
Read-only repository access where possible
Least-privilege access, scoped to the reviewed repositories only
Your code is never reused, retained for training or shared between clients
EU-based engineering talent, working under EU data protection law
Access logging and full removal of repository access after the engagement
Frequently Asked Questions
Our core coverage is TypeScript/JavaScript, Python, Go, Java, C#, PHP and SQL, plus the common frameworks around them. For other stacks we confirm reviewer availability before any engagement starts, so you never pay for a review we cannot do well.
Yes. We review the code itself, regardless of whether it was produced with Claude Code, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Replit, Lovable, any other tool, or written by hand. Mixed human and AI codebases are the normal case, not the exception.
Reviewers need enough context to judge architectural impact, so full read access to the reviewed repository is the default. Where your setup allows it, access is read-only and scoped to specific repositories. You control and can revoke access at any time.
During the Pilot, standard pull requests (1 credit) receive a completed review within one business day. Larger changes are scoped and scheduled with you upfront. Health Check reports are delivered in 5 to 10 business days depending on codebase size.
No. It replaces the review capacity you are missing, not the people you have. Your team, or your AI tools, keep writing the code. We make sure someone experienced reads it before it reaches production.
No, and this is deliberate. Reviewers issue a documented verdict: No Blocking Findings Identified, Changes Required, or High Risk: Not Recommended for Merge. The final merge decision, and responsibility for it, always stays with your team.
NDA before access, least-privilege and read-only access where possible, no reuse or retention of your code, EU-based reviewers under EU data protection law, access logging, and full removal of access when the engagement ends.
Yes. Every engagement is staffed with a dedicated primary reviewer who learns your codebase and stays with you, plus a qualified backup reviewer so response times hold during illness, holidays or load spikes.
See the report before you decide.
Tell us about your stack and volume. We will review one real pull request or a representative slice of your codebase and send you the exact report format your team would receive. No commitment attached.
Prefer email? business@techwork.bg
A service by TECHWORK.BG · Your Top Tech Talent Source