Security and QA checks for Lovable, v0, and Bolt apps
You shipped an app fast with Lovable, v0, or Bolt and now you want to know what slipped through. Point AuditWard at the deployed URL and it QA-tests the running site in a real Chromium browser and security-scans it with real pentest tooling, then hands back triaged findings, screenshots, and a PDF.
AI builders ship working UI, not hardened apps.
Tools like Lovable, v0, and Bolt are good at turning a prompt into a deployed app in minutes. What they do not do is check whether the login flow actually works end to end, whether your API keys leaked into the client bundle, or whether the database rules behind a generated Supabase or Firebase backend let anyone read other people's rows. That gap is exactly what AuditWard looks at.
The generator wrote the code. AuditWard tests the thing it deployed, from the outside, the way a user and an attacker would meet it. You get a second opinion on the live site before real traffic finds the holes for you.
From a URL to a report, step by step.
One audit runs four stages back to back. You give it the deployed link and any context it needs, then a Planner, an Explorer, the security tools, and an Analyst do the rest. Here is what happens at each stage and what comes out the other end.
Paste the live URL
Use the production or staging link your builder gave you, for example a *.vercel.app, *.netlify.app, or your own domain. Add a one-line instruction if you want, like "focus on the signup and checkout flow". AuditWard verifies you control the domain with a DNS TXT record before it scans.
Builds the checklist
An LLM Planner reads the URL and your instructions and writes a test checklist for this specific app: the pages worth visiting, the forms worth submitting, and the flows worth completing. Nothing is replayed from a script. The plan is shaped around what your app actually exposes.
Drives a real browser
An Explorer agent opens a real Chromium browser and works through the checklist: it clicks, fills forms, follows links, and watches what the app does. If a flow needs a login, the scan pauses and asks you with structured questions. Answer in the dashboard or with the MCP tool and it resumes. Those answers are KMS-encrypted.
Probe the target
While the browser session runs, real pentest tooling probes the same target: curl, testssl.sh, Nuclei, Nmap, Gobuster, nslookup, and WhatWeb. They check TLS configuration, response headers, exposed paths, open ports, DNS, and the tech stack behind the app. This is where most of the security gaps in a generated app surface.
Turns evidence into a report
An Analyst agent reads the browser evidence and the tool output together, removes obvious noise, and writes up findings with a confidence score and a severity. Each finding is tagged to the frameworks it touches (PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, GDPR, OWASP Top 10, HIPAA, ISO 27001), with an annotated screenshot where the issue is visual. You get the list in the dashboard and a pentest-style PDF report you can hand to a teammate or a client.
The findings that show up most on generated apps.
Generated apps tend to fail in predictable places: client-side secrets, missing security headers, weak transport settings, and broken or half-finished flows that looked fine in the preview. The table below lists common finding types from each side of the audit and how AuditWard surfaces them.
| Finding type | Side of the audit | How AuditWard surfaces it |
|---|---|---|
| Leaked API key in the client bundle | Security | Tooling inspects served JavaScript and responses for keys and secrets that should never reach the browser. |
| Missing security headers | Security | curl-based checks flag absent Content-Security-Policy, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, and similar response headers. |
| Weak or misconfigured TLS | Security | testssl.sh reports outdated protocol versions, weak ciphers, and certificate problems on the deployed host. |
| Exposed admin or config paths | Security | Gobuster and Nuclei probe for reachable paths and known-issue signatures the generator left open. |
| Signup or login that dead-ends | QA | The Explorer completes the flow in a real browser and records where it breaks, with screenshots at the failure point. |
| Placeholder text and lorem ipsum left in | QA | The browser session captures unfinished content and visual bugs the preview hid. |
| Forms that submit without validation | QA and Security | The Explorer submits unexpected input and the Analyst flags missing handling worth a closer look. |
What this is and what it is not.
AuditWard is a fast, automated QA and security pass on the running app. It finds and evidences real issues so you can fix them before launch. It is not a manual penetration test, it is not an ASV scan, and it does not make you compliant or certify your app. Treat it as a strong first line, not the last word.
It complements a pentest
For a high-stakes app you still want a human penetration test. AuditWard clears the common, automatable problems first so a manual tester spends their time on the hard logic, not on missing headers. The scanner respects robots.txt, rate limits, runs no denial-of-service tests, and only reports takeover weaknesses rather than exploiting them.
Compliance tags, not a certificate
Each finding carries the framework references it touches so you can use the report as evidence in SOC 2, PCI, or GDPR work. The tagging is per finding, not a readiness verdict on the whole app. AuditWard supports that work, it does not replace an auditor.
Questions about scanning AI-built apps.
How do I audit a Lovable app before launch?
Paste the deployed URL Lovable gave you into AuditWard and start a scan. It verifies you control the domain, QA-tests the live site in a real browser, and runs security tooling against it, then returns triaged findings and a PDF you can act on before you ship.
Does the security check work for a v0 or Bolt app the same way?
Yes. The audit works against the deployed URL, so it does not matter which builder produced the code. A v0 or Bolt deployment on Vercel, Netlify, or your own domain is scanned the same way as any other site.
My app is behind a login. Can it still scan?
Yes. When the scan reaches a login wall it pauses and asks you structured questions for credentials. You answer in the dashboard or with the qa_provide_context MCP tool and the scan resumes. Those answers are KMS-encrypted before storage. The credential loop is on Starter and above.
Will this find leaked API keys from my generated backend?
The security tooling inspects the served bundle and responses for secrets that should never reach the browser, which is a common mistake in AI-generated apps. It cannot see inside your hosting provider or your database rules directly, so pair the scan with a review of your backend access controls.
Is this a penetration test or a PCI scan?
No. AuditWard is an automated QA and security audit, not a manual penetration test and not an ASV scan. It is not a PCI Approved Scanning Vendor. It complements a pentest by clearing the common automatable issues first and gives you evidence for compliance work, but it does not certify your app.
Can I run the scan from my coding agent?
Yes. AuditWard ships an MCP server, so a coding agent like Claude Code can start a scan with qa_test, poll qa_status, and pull the report with qa_report. MCP access is included on Starter and above.