lang:yaml filename:.github/workflows/ci.yml
steps:
run: npm install
run: npm run lint
run: npm run test:unit
run: npm run test:e2e
::
Real-world Proving Grounds
Epicmax, Coditive, and Neon report the lowest defect rates when clients enforce phased, test-led playbooks and avoid "big bang" releases. See Epicmax's case studies and Coditive's migration guide. Phase work, test early, and roll out gradually.
Testing, Observability, and Post-Migration Support: Ownership Over Promises
Vetting Nuxt migration partners doesn't end with a staged plan-they should own testing infrastructure and post-launch monitoring. Make the vendor own tests and monitoring, not you. This means:
Automated regression and E2E test coverage for all major flows
User acceptance testing (UAT) cycles and documented acceptance criteria
Browser/device/channel compatibility validation
Performance budgets tracked in CI/CD
Post-launch monitoring, alerting, and error reporting (Sentry, Datadog, Vercel Analytics, custom logs)
Immediate error budgets and scheduled follow-ups for the first 2-4 weeks after launch
Always push for:
A test summary (coverage %, workflows, device support)
UAT session recording or proof (screenshots, logs)
Documentation for observability-health dashboards, log retention plans, what's monitored, and by whom
Pro Tip
Tie a final payment step to "defect-free" acceptance: no P1 or P2 bugs for a two-week window after launch. This creates real ownership, not just ticket closure.
Post-migration, solid partners typically cover:
Regression automation, not just spot tests
Multiple browsers/devices (Chromium, WebKit, mobile)
Real user monitoring tied to revenue workflows
Zero-downtime rollback scripts
**Why This Matters:**Testing, observability, and useful analytics are how you catch silent failures (broken SEO, sporadic payments, undetected API timeouts) before they hit revenue. Skipping this step shifts hidden risk back onto your team.
Common Red Flags When Selecting a Nuxt Migration Agency
The US market has seen its share of failed, over-budget, or half-baked "migrations." Treat the following as stop signs.
1. Skipping the Audit
Any agency dismissing the need for a code review for Nuxt apps up front is either guessing or trying to rush to billable work. Default fail.
2. "Lift-and-Shift" Promises
If a vendor paints Nuxt 2→3 as a "version bump" or promises the same features and performance on day one, move on. Nuxt 3 introduces major shifts in SSR, state, async loaders, and deployment-see Nuxt's migration discussions. You need a plan, not a promise.
3. No Edge or Serverless Plan
Your infrastructure likely points to serverless or edge (Vercel/Netlify/Cloudflare). Vendors without hands-on experience here create scaling and build risks.
4. Omitting Comprehensive Testing
If a Nuxt agency doesn't own automated testing or post-launch monitoring, you carry the risk and the bill for what they miss.
5. Hourly-only Contracts
"Fixed hourly" or "generic fixed scope" contracts miss the mark. There's no incentive to fix hard bugs, deliver readable code, or share risk. Tie payment to tested outcomes, not hours.
Warning
Do not select any Nuxt migration partner that skips an up-front audit, cannot explain edge/serverless hosting compatibility, or fails to propose automated regression and UAT as default-not optional-parts of their process.
Misconceptions to Avoid:
"The app works = the migration succeeded." Many issues (SEO, deep integrations, SSR performance, unhandled regression) surface only under real traffic.
Trusting aggressive timelines offered before any code review, especially when dependencies (Node, module versions, build pipelines) are unknown.
Overlooking the importance of new documentation, dependency upgrades, and a tested rollback path.
Vendor Scorecard: Compare Nuxt Migration Experts, Not Just Price Points
To select the right Nuxt migration partner, use a scorecard that rates each vendor on what drives ROI. Score real work and risk controls-not slide decks.
Nuxt 3 Project Count: Score based on live, post-EOL Nuxt 3 migrations for comparable US-based SaaS, e-commerce, or enterprise clients.
Migration Playbook Depth: Higher scores for documented, multi-stage processes (audit, pilot, QA, deploy, post-launch).
Code Audit and Reporting: Top marks for proof of thorough code, plugin, and infrastructure audit before quoting.
Testing/QA Coverage: Look for minimum automation targets (80%+ critical workflow coverage), browser matrix, real user scenarios.
Edge/Serverless Expertise: Points for production deployments to Vercel, Netlify, Cloudflare, or custom Docker setups.
Public Nuxt 3 Case Studies: At least two public case studies with clear before/after results and named client contacts.
Risk Controls and Rollback Readiness: Bonus for planned rollback, quick-release, and post-launch validation schedules.
Compare agencies side by side on these factors, not just hourly rates or reassurances.
A practical scorecard connects your project needs to proven Nuxt 3 references, phased audit-to-rollout plans, owned testing/post-launch support, and edge/serverless deployment experience.
Only shortlist agencies who score high on migration experience, audit depth, test coverage, and references-not just price.
Sample Text-Based Comparison Format:
Partner A: 5 recent Nuxt 3 projects, audit-first approach, phased migration, 90% test automation, Vercel/Netlify/Cloudflare rollout, 3 named case studies.
Partner B: 2 Nuxt 3 upgrades, basic code review, "lift-and-shift" tactics, limited test automation, no edge hosting, only 1 case study (no client reference).
Partner C: Unknown migration count, no published playbook, unclear test strategy, internal legacy infrastructure, no references.
Choose on outcome ownership, not rhetoric.
Why Risk-Sharing Contracts Win: Fixed Price vs T&M
Standard "fixed price" or pure time-and-materials (T&M) contracts often leave risk on you. Nuxt upgrades have enough variables that you want a genuine risk-sharing model-where payment ties to results, not just tasks. Tie payments to verified outcomes, not hours.
Payment Step 1: Audit accepted, migration plan approved (10%)
Payment Step 2: Pilot migration passes tests and customer acceptance (20%)
Payment Step 3: Full migration, regression, and performance tests passed (40%)
Payment Step 4: Go-live, zero major defects for two weeks, handoff completed (30%)
Fixed price contracts without clear acceptance tests reward speed over reliability. Pure T&M models reward more hours.
Risk-sharing contracts mean:
You pay for completed, verified phases
Vendors minimize rework, own test coverage, and document handoff
Both sides share the pressure for speed and reliability
A good Nuxt agency selection process ties payment stages to migration outcomes-not just hours logged or ticket closure. This lowers vendor friction and your operational risk.
The Nunuqs Approach: Audit, Transparency, Ownership
At Nunuqs, we refactor and stabilize enterprise-scale Vue and Nuxt applications for SaaS, e-commerce, and other business platforms in the USA. Our workflow starts with a transparent, metrics-focused Nuxt audit and ends with tested, observable releases. We put audit, phased delivery, and shared accountability at the center. Here's what we follow in every Nuxt migration:
Audit-first discovery: custom compatibility scripts, manual code review, business process mapping (not just a glance at package.json)
Stepwise migration plan: from pilot to full rollout, with a rollback plan and change tracking
Automated regression and E2E tests built in
Edge/serverless deployment included-Vercel, Netlify, or your custom Docker stack
Real-time observability dashboards, error tracking, and health checks
Clear, accountable contracts: payment mapped to go-live and post-launch stability
Practical Guidance for Nuxt Migration Agency RFPs
Taking this to your boardroom or procurement team? Lead with value, risk reduction, and ROI. Make vendors prove their plan, their tests, and their results.
Build questions from the criteria and scorecard above. Require public case studies, migration playbook samples, and real client references.
Insist that every proposal covers audit findings, migration phasing, code/test coverage, rollout and rollback, and post-go-live monitoring.
Demand evidence of outcomes achieved (improved performance, lower bug rate, zero outages) for companies of similar size/sector.
Press for a risk-sharing contract: staged payments tied to audit, pilot migration, full signoff, and post-launch stability (with defect windows, not just go-live).
Pro Tip
Add a vendor test case or code sample to your RFP. Have them diagnose a known bad module or plugin migration-you'll quickly see who understands real Nuxt 3 audits and operations.
Easy Litmus Tests:
Do they perform a dependency audit before quoting?
Can they share two or more Nuxt 3 SaaS/e-commerce reference projects?
Is automated testing/regression included from the start?
Is a serverless/edge rollout plan included by default?
Do they guarantee a defect window post-launch, not "just code up"?
Vendors failing any of the above will create more risk than they remove.
Final Checklist: Selecting Your Nuxt Migration Partner
Assess proven Nuxt 3 migrations-challenge every claim with case studies and client references.
Demand a documented, phased audit-to-rollout plan with specific risk and rollback coverage.
Require end-to-end testing, real user monitoring, and health dashboards, owned by your partner.
Avoid partners who skip audits, promise "lift-and-shift," ignore edge/serverless, or don't own post-launch observability.
Use a text-based scorecard to compare vendors across migration experience, plan quality, test/QA ownership, and risk controls.
Structure contracts so payment matches verified phases and business outcomes-not just hours.
Nuxt 2 is finished. Your users, investors, and security teams are watching. Select a partner who reduces risk, protects revenue, and keeps your teams shipping with confidence. Use the scorecard and RFP guidance above to de-risk your move to Nuxt 3 and lock in results you can verify.