Artificial IntelligenceNew vertical

CleanMe(my AI disaster)

A short, flat-fee audit of the shadow AI already running inside your company: the AI-built tools nobody officially signed off on, done with the people who built them, not around them. We flag what is actually risky and leave you with a repeatable way to keep checking your own work.

Send a message
  • $1,000

    flat fee

    Much less than what those inexplicable errors are going to cost you.

  • 2 sessions

    1 hour each

    That's the least we might actually need.

  • Vendor-agnostic

    not tied to us

    You don't stay stuck with the enthusiast who built that impossible-to-maintain tool, either.

  • Built-with

    not policing

    Nobody's in trouble here. We just want everyone sleeping fine at night.

5.0 · 10 verified reviews on Clutch

The problem

Someone on your team already built something with AI. Nobody's checked it.

That's not a discipline problem. The people building these tools are usually your best ones, the kind who fix a broken process without waiting for permission. That instinct is exactly what you want.

The problem is what happens next. A prompt that looked fine in the demo breaks quietly in production. Or the prompt is fine, and whoever relies on its output still has no way to tell if it's actually right. Nobody's built that check yet.

Enthusiasm in. Precision out.

You don't find out the hard way. Not on our watch.

Whoever built it did it with real care, on their own time, because it mattered to them. We're the calm, sharp pass it never got. You'll trust the outcome.

What's covered

An audit for the AI tools your team already built.

See case studiesA hand-drawn Dunning-Kruger effect chart: confidence peaks early labeled 'This could be you', dips at 'Average person', then climbs again through 'Formal Training' to a steadier point labeled 'Where we take you'.

More on the effect: Wikipedia · The Decision Lab

Ambiguous-prompt review

We check whether the instructions behind each tool actually specify what "correct" means, or whether it is quietly relying on an assumption nobody wrote down.

Edge-case and failure-mode check

Malformed input, unusual cases, and what happens when the tool is confidently wrong instead of visibly broken.

Human-in-the-loop gaps

Where AI output feeds something consequential (client-facing text, financial figures, decisions) with no check anywhere downstream.

Silent-failure exposure

The cases where the tool can be subtly wrong without erroring, and nothing downstream would ever notice.

How we engage

The engagement process

01

Discovery session

One hour with your team and whoever built the tools in question. We inventory what is in use, and for what.

02

Pattern audit

We review the collected prompts and tools against a checklist of known bad patterns, and flag which carry real risk given how their output gets used.

03

Findings report

A specific list of where the exposure actually is, not a generic AI-readiness score.

04

Routine handoff

A second one-hour session where we install a repeatable review routine with the people who will actually use it, so you can keep checking your own work after we leave.

Why Rather Labs

Why we're the right fit

See case studies

Built with your team, not around them

The people who built the tools are in the room for the audit. This is not a report that lands on a desk with no context.

Vendor-agnostic by design

The engagement is built so you are not tied to anyone afterward: not to the person who built the tool, and not to Rather Labs either.

You keep the routine, we do not keep the relationship

The goal is a habit your team can run without an outsider, before the first expensive mistake instead of after it.

Questions we hear often

Specific questions? Book a 30-minute discovery call. No commitment, just honest answers.

Get in touch

No. The people building these tools are usually the best ones on your team, and the instinct to fix a broken process without waiting for permission is exactly what you want. The audit is about giving that instinct a way to check its own work, not about shutting it down.

The engagement is two one-hour sessions. We are not proposing an approval process or a new layer of bureaucracy. The deliverable is a lightweight routine your team runs itself, not a standing review board.

That is the point of the audit. You get a specific, prioritized list of where the real exposure is, not a vague warning. The fix stays yours to make, on your own timeline.

No. The audit works from the prompts, configs, and outputs your team shares with us in the discovery session, not from access to your production systems.

Get in touch

Let's build what's next

Tell us about your challenge or book a call directly. We'll get back to you within one business day.

Fastest path

Book a 30-min call

Pick a slot that works for you. No lengthy intake form, we come prepared with the right questions.

  1. 1

    30-min discovery call

    We understand your system, timeline, and constraints. No upsell, no pressure.

  2. 2

    Honest fit assessment

    If we're not the right match, we'll say so and suggest alternatives.

  3. 3

    Architecture review

    If we align, a short review validates scope and de-risks delivery.

  4. 4

    Sprint-based delivery

    Senior ownership end-to-end, with a 90-day post-launch warranty.

Marcos Tacca

Marcos Tacca

VP of Operations, Rather Labs. You'll speak with him directly.

Or send a message

Tell us what you're building. We'll take it from there.

Our team replies within one business day.