Finish my Lovable app — for founders whose project got stuck.

Yes. Handing an unfinished Lovable project to a developer is completely normal, and it is most of what I do. Your project is an ordinary React, TypeScript and Tailwind codebase backed by Postgres, so there is nothing exotic to inherit. I read the existing code, work out what the last ten prompts were actually trying to achieve, agree the shortest honest path to a launchable version with you, and build it. You keep working in the same project afterwards if you want to.

It does. A Lovable project can run a full Postgres database, authentication, file storage, scheduled jobs, server-side functions, webhooks and third-party API calls. The reason people conclude that it 'has no backend' is usually that the data model was generated one table at a time in response to whatever the screen needed, so relationships, constraints and access rules were never designed. That is a design problem, not a platform limit — and it is fixable without starting over.

Increasingly, yes — as a code generator sitting on a conventional stack, not as a replacement for engineering. The generated output is code you can read, review and refactor, which is precisely why professionals will touch it. What separates a developer's Lovable project from a stalled one is not the prompts; it is schema design, security rules, error handling and knowing when to stop generating and start refactoring.

Almost always one of a short list: code that assumes a browser is running when the page is rendered on the server, an environment variable that exists in development but was never set for production, a database rule that silently returns nothing for real signed-in users, or an asset path that resolves locally and nowhere else. Each is quick to fix once identified, and each is nearly impossible to guess at from the outside — which is why the first step is always reading the actual error, not re-prompting.

For a first version, this is usually a false choice. Building the shell with Lovable and bringing in a developer for the data model, security, payments and launch gets you to real users far faster and cheaper than a traditional agency build, and far more safely than prompting alone. Hire a conventional team when you have paying customers, a proven shape and genuinely hard engineering ahead — not before you know whether anyone wants the thing.

Assume not until it has been checked. The single most common serious flaw I find is a database table that is readable or writable by anyone who knows the address of your app, because row-level security was enabled without policies that actually scope rows to their owner. Other recurring issues: secrets pasted into front-end code, admin rights stored somewhere the user can edit, and file uploads with no restrictions. An audit takes hours; the consequences of skipping it do not.

Stop prompting. That loop means the codebase has grown past the point where each change can be reasoned about in isolation — usually one enormous file doing six jobs, duplicated logic in three places, or state stored in two conflicting spots. More prompts add mass to the problem. The fix is a human refactor: split the file, remove the duplicates, establish one source of truth, then resume building.

Rescue work is quoted as a fixed fee after I have looked at the project, because that is the only honest way to price it. A specific broken feature or failing build is small. A stalled half-built product that needs a real data model, security rules and a launch is scoped like a short sprint. You get the number and the deliverables in writing before anything starts.