How to Tell If a Website Was Built With Bolt.new, Lovable, or v0
Hosted AI website builders like Bolt.new, Lovable, v0, and Replit generate a working app from a prompt and deploy it for you. Because the platform controls the build pipeline, it often — but not always — leaves a trace in the shipped page. Here is what to actually look for if you want to check by hand, before reaching for an automated tool.
Start with view-source, not DevTools
Right-click and choose "View Page Source" (not "Inspect") so you see exactly what the server sent, before any client-side JavaScript has a chance to rewrite the DOM. Search that raw HTML for three things: a meta name="generator" tag, any script or asset URL pointing at a CDN domain you don't recognize, and CSS class names with an unfamiliar short prefix repeated across many elements.
Attribution badges are the strongest signal — and the rarest
Some platforms add a small floating badge to deployed apps unless the owner disables it, with wording along the lines of "Edit this app" or "Made with" followed by the platform's name, linking back to the builder. If you find one, that's about as close to a signed confession as this kind of detection gets. But plenty of site owners remove the badge, upgrade to a paid plan that hides it, or export the code and deploy it themselves — so its absence tells you nothing either way.
CDN domains and asset paths
Design-focused builders tend to serve fonts, images, and scripts from their own CDN even after you connect a custom domain — Framer-built sites commonly load assets from a framer-branded content domain, Webflow from a website-files domain, and so on. This is more reliable than a badge, because removing it usually means migrating the whole asset pipeline, not just deleting a widget. Full-stack app generators like Bolt.new and Replit are less consistent about this, since the code they hand you is a normal app you deploy wherever you want.
Why a link to the tool proves nothing
One mistake worth naming directly: a page that simply links to bolt.new, lovable.dev, or replit.com — to recommend the tool, review it, or reference it in a comparison — is not evidence the page itself was built there. We learned this one the hard way while building this very detector: our own "tools we detect" page linked out to each platform's homepage, and an earlier version of our own scoring logic misread those outbound links as attribution. We since tightened it to require an actual claim of having been built with the tool, not just a mention of it. If you're evaluating any automated checker's output — ours included — ask whether its evidence is really about how the page was built, or just what the page talks about.
When there's no trace at all
Locally-run agentic coding tools — Claude Code, Cursor, and similar — edit a real codebase the same way a human developer would, through a normal editor and terminal. Unless the developer explicitly credits the tool somewhere in the copy, there is no CDN domain, class prefix, or badge to find, because there was never a hosted build pipeline stamping the output. A well-built site made this way is often genuinely indistinguishable from a hand-written one by inspecting the shipped page alone.
Want to skip the manual digging? Paste a URL into our detector and see every signal it finds, with the exact matched evidence — or read the full methodology behind how it scores a page.