Styles that never compile
Tailwind classes assembled from template literals at runtime. The compiler never sees the string, so the style silently does not exist, and the hover state you wrote has never once fired.
hover:border-${color}Your Bolt or Lovable build shipped with bugs neither of you can see.
Website QC reads the code and the rendered page, finds the specific defects these generators leave behind, and explains why each one matters. It is closer to a linter with visual awareness than to a design opinion.
Six identical blocks, because there were six things to say. Nothing on the page is more important than anything else.
repetition · no focal point
Each finding names a specific element and a checkable cause, not a general impression.
One thing leads, the rest support it, and the page ends where it should. Same content, different weight.
What it actually finds
These are defect classes traced back to how the generators work, which is why they recur across unrelated projects rather than appearing once.
Images hot-linked out of your control
Logos and photos served from an unrelated or abandoned repository rather than your own project. One deletion by someone else and your live site has a broken image where the logo was.
Two buttons, one handler
A primary and a secondary action labelled differently but wired to the same destination, so a new visitor clicking "get started" lands on a sign-in form asking for credentials they do not have yet.
Pages that just stop
No footer, or a section the rest of the codebase already assumes exists, left out by an incomplete generation pass and never noticed because the page still renders.
The wrong file wins
A leftover component from an earlier attempt still resolving ahead of the one you actually edited, which is why your change appeared to do nothing.
No plan for when something breaks
An external image with no error handling, degrading to the browser's default broken icon in front of a customer instead of something you chose.
Where this honestly stands
A manual review, done by hand
Send a repository or a live URL and it gets reviewed properly. Two validation passes are complete against real public repositories: one on Lovable-family output, one on a Bolt.new project, both finding checkable defects and producing patches that built and type-checked clean with no regressions.
A reviewer that opens pull requests
The intended shape is a system that watches a repository and proposes small, specific patches a maintainer would actually merge. That is the direction, not the current state, and nothing on this page should be read as saying it exists today.
What has actually been tested
pass 01Three real public repositories, cloned, installed, run and patched in place. Six patches, all built and type-checked clean, zero regressions against before and after screenshots.
pass 02A separate falsification pass against Bolt.new output specifically, to check the defect classes were not just an artifact of one generator.
restraintTwo candidate issues were investigated and deliberately not patched, because the reasoning was not strong enough to justify a diff. That count matters as much as the fixes.
No aggregate metrics are published here because none would be honest yet. There is no "sites analysed" number, and there will not be one until it means something.