Most operations teams we speak to have the same inventory problem. Someone in finance built a reconciliation tool that works. Someone in ops has a dashboard that three people depend on. Each was built quickly, each solves a real problem, and none of them has an owner, an auth layer, or a place in the security review.
The instinct is usually to shut them down or to rebuild them from scratch. Both waste the part that is genuinely valuable: the tool already encodes how that team actually works, which is the hardest thing to specify and the easiest thing to lose in a rebuild.
We call the alternative BYOA: Bring Your Own App. You hand us what your team built, in whatever state it exists. We take it apart, rebuild it properly on the jig platform, and it comes back with everything an internally built tool usually lacks.
What “in whatever state” means
BYOA takes an app at any stage of completeness. A single HTML file someone prompted into existence is a valid starting point. So is a repository that runs locally but was never deployed, and so is something already live on a personal account somewhere.
The state of the app changes how long the rebuild takes. It does not change whether we can accept it.
How BYOA works
1. Intake
You submit the app in whatever form it exists: file, repo, or deployed URL.
2. Decomposition
Our pipeline takes the app apart and extracts what it does, not just how it was written.
3. Spec generation
That behaviour is converted into a structured specification: rules, data model, workflows.
4. Knowledge base
The spec is ingested into your jig knowledge base, alongside your other tools.
5. Rebuild
We build the app on the jig stack, with the platform layer applied from the start.
The decomposition and spec-generation steps are proprietary to jig. They are the reason BYOA preserves the logic your team encoded rather than asking someone to write requirements from memory.
The step that matters most is the third one. Converting a working app into a specification is what separates BYOA from a rewrite: the business rules your team already worked out get captured as durable documentation rather than staying locked inside code nobody has read.
Once that specification is in your knowledge base, it stays there. The next change to that tool starts from a written understanding of what it does, not from someone reverse-engineering it under time pressure.
Before and after
What changes, dimension by dimension
| Dimension | Decentralised vibe-coded apps | BYOA |
|---|---|---|
| Authentication | Configured per app by whoever built it, or absent entirely | One standard auth layer applied to every tool on the platform |
| Compliance and data governance | Rarely reviewed. Data access is whatever the tool happened to be given | Governed centrally, with data access defined at the platform layer rather than per app |
| Security posture | Depends on what the model generated and what nobody checked afterwards | Rebuilt on a reviewed stack, with the same standards applied across every tool |
| Architecture | Shaped by prompt history. Logic and schemas duplicated across tools | Rebuilt against a specification, with shared data definitions across your tools |
| Look and feel | Different in every tool, since each was generated independently | Standardised across your whole estate, so staff learn one interface |
| Documentation | The prompts that produced it, held by one person, usually gone | A structured spec in your knowledge base, readable by anyone who needs it |
| Ongoing support | The original builder, subject to their availability and tenure | Standard jig support. Bug fixes under the platform fee; changes as new sprints |
| Ownership | Yours, but only as long as someone can still run and change it | Yours, with all code and data exportable at any time |
The honest trade-off: BYOA is a rebuild, not a wrapper. It takes sprint time, and the version that comes back may behave differently in edge cases the original handled by accident. What you get for that is a tool your security team can sign off on and someone other than the original builder can change.
When leaving an app alone still makes sense
Not every internally built tool is worth bringing in. A script one person runs once a quarter against data nobody else touches carries little risk, and formalising it adds cost without reducing much.
The same is true of genuine throwaways: a tool built to answer one question during a specific project, which nobody expects to run again. BYOA earns its cost when a tool has become load-bearing, when more than one person depends on it, or when it touches data you would have to explain in an audit.
The underlying point
Vibe coding produced something valuable inside most enterprises: a large body of tools that reflect how work actually happens, built by the people who do that work. The problem was never the building. It was that each tool arrived without the layer underneath it that makes software safe to depend on.
BYOA separates those two things. Your teams keep building; the platform layer stops being something each of them has to reinvent badly.
This applies regardless of how the app was built or what shape it arrived in. The value your team encoded is worth keeping. The absence of auth, governance, documentation, and support around it is not.
Bring the tools your team already built. Discovery is free, and you see working software before you commit.
Book a free discovery call