Get your Claude Code project reviewed, architecture, security and infrastructure in view
Claude Code builds a lot, and very fast, but a production-ready project is decided by auth, RLS, secrets, dependencies and infrastructure. Veriploy reviews a project built with Claude Code on exactly those points and keeps it under ongoing technical oversight afterwards, instead of stopping at a one-off audit.
- Snapshot from 249 €
- Fixed monthly plans
- Repo + CVE + infrastructure
- German point of contact
Technical point of contact
Timo Wevelsiep
Software engineer, cloud architect, founder & managing director
I review code, security and infrastructure and surface what is technically risky before launch, customer use or due diligence.
For questions like:
- Is this release ready for production?
- Which CVEs are really critical?
- Will the architecture carry the next users?
Claude Code builds a lot and fast, but production gaps remain
Claude Code generates whole features, migrations and deployments in no time. The speed is impressive, yet the decisions that determine real production are often missing or incomplete. These are the gaps we see most often in Claude Code projects:
- Authentication without a clean roles and permissions model
- Supabase RLS not enabled, too open or inconsistent per table
- Secrets and API keys in the frontend, in configs or in the repository
- Dependencies with known CVEs, often several versions behind
- Tests missing, only placeholders or not covering the critical paths
- Infrastructure without a backup, recovery and rollback plan
- No monitoring and no logging when something breaks in operation
- Open or unthrottled endpoints without rate limiting
Why even strong AI code needs an independent review
Claude Code often writes clean, readable code. That is exactly the trap: code that looks good is rarely questioned. Readability is no proof that tenant isolation holds, that secrets do not leak or that the infrastructure survives an outage.
The model optimises for the prompt in front of it, not for the whole system. It rarely sees the full attack surface, does not know your data flow across multiple tables in detail, and does not check whether a dependency has picked up a new CVE since its training cut-off. Letting the same assistant grade its own code also tends to produce an overly favourable verdict.
An independent review looks at the repository and infrastructure from the outside, with a clear severity per finding and human prioritisation. Not to talk Claude Code down, but to close the gaps that sit between building fast and real production.
What Veriploy reviews in your Claude Code project
We look at the points that decide production readiness and rank every finding by severity. We review:
- Repo and architecture: structure, dependencies, obvious weak spots
- Security and access control: auth, roles, exposed secrets
- CVEs and dependencies: known vulnerabilities in the packages you use
- Database and RLS: tenant isolation, policies, access protection
- Infrastructure, deployment, backups and monitoring
- Production readiness: what is still missing before real users
One review is not enough: ongoing oversight
A one-off audit describes yesterday's state. With Claude Code, features land daily: every new feature adds new dependencies, new CVEs surface every week, and every prompt shifts the architecture a little. An action plan that is four weeks old no longer covers that movement.
This is exactly where Veriploy comes in: you get the project reviewed once (Snapshot or Baseline) and then keep it under ongoing technical oversight with Watch, Guard or Launch. That keeps the risk dashboard current instead of going stale with every merge.
On an ongoing plan, new dependencies and CVEs are watched, risky changes are flagged early, and before larger releases you get a human judgement instead of an automated score. Async sparring and a direct channel are included depending on the plan.
Snapshot, Baseline or ongoing plan
You start with a one-off review and then decide whether ongoing oversight makes sense. Prices are fixed and transparent.
| Snapshot 249 € | Baseline 490 € | Plan from 299 €/mo | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Automated scan plus a short manual look at 1 repo | Deep initial baseline: repo, architecture, dependencies, config | Recurring reviews based on the baseline |
| Result | The 5 most important risks, 1-page risk dashboard | Risk dashboard, CVE baseline, secrets check, plan recommendation | Recurring reports with fix prioritisation |
| CVEs and dependencies | Point-in-time snapshot | Full baseline as a reference point | Ongoing CVE and dependency monitoring |
| Support | One-off | One-off, with a recommendation for the right plan | Async sparring and a direct channel by plan |
| Best for | First assessment, small budget | Clean starting point before any plan | Projects that keep growing with Claude Code |
What a finding looks like
The Supabase service-role key sits in the frontend bundle and can be read from the shipped JavaScript file. Recommendation: keep the key server-side, rotate it and use it only through a protected route.
Let Claude Code review itself or review it independently?
| Claude Code reviews itself | Veriploy independent | |
|---|---|---|
| Perspective | Optimised for the current prompt | Outside view on repo and infrastructure |
| CVEs and dependencies | Training state, no live comparison | Ongoing monitoring with alerts |
| Tenant isolation | Rarely sees the full data flow | Targeted review of RLS and policies |
| Before a release | Automated, often favourable verdict | Human prioritisation included in the plan |
| Over time | Only assesses the moment of the prompt | Continuous, with every new change |
Frequently asked questions
Is Claude Code output worse than hand-written code?
Not by default. Claude Code often produces clean, readable code. The risks lie less in the syntax than in architecture and operations decisions: roles, RLS, secrets, dependencies and infrastructure. Those are exactly the points we review, regardless of how the code was created.
Can't I just ask Claude Code for a review myself?
You can, but the same assistant that built the code often grades it too favourably and rarely sees the full attack surface or new CVEs since its training cut-off. An independent Claude Code review looks at the repo and infrastructure from the outside and prioritises the findings with a human.
Do you also do the fixes?
Not within the plan. We review, prioritise and explain what needs to be done. Implementation runs separately through Wevelsiep Advisory or WZ-IT, or your own team. That keeps the review independent from the implementation.
Do you need repo access?
Yes, read-only by default. Read access to the repository is enough for the review. We do not need write access, because we do not commit the fixes ourselves.
What does it cost?
The entry point is fixed: Snapshot 249 € and Baseline 490 € as one-off reviews. Ongoing oversight starts at 299 € per month (Watch), then Guard at 749 € and Launch at 1.490 € per month, with larger projects on Scale from 2.900 € per month. All prices are net plus VAT, plans cancellable monthly.
How fast do I get results?
We usually deliver the Snapshot within a few business days. The Baseline takes a little longer because it goes deeper. On an ongoing plan you get regular reports and a prompt heads-up on critical CVEs.
- Cursor code review, from prototype to a production-ready codebase
- CodeRabbit alternative? When a tool is enough and when a human should look at the repo, CVEs and infrastructure
- Make your AI app production-ready, spot technical risks before real users
- Repo review subscription, a recurring senior look at code, CVEs and architecture
Get your Claude Code project reviewed and keep it monitored afterwards.
Start with Snapshot or Baseline, then ongoing oversight in the plan that fits.