Find out what is really wrong before you rebuild everything.
You already have software, but no longer know which problems are superficial and which are structural. We reconstruct how the system works, separate technical debt from real risks and give you a prioritised route forward.
When is this offer a fit?
When you sense something is technically wrong, but the actual cause or extent isn't clear yet.
Our vibe-coded app needs to become professional
You've built a surprising amount with AI tools. Now the app has to become reliable, secure and maintainable enough for serious use.
View use caseOur agent is not reliable enough
The agent can do impressive things, but does not behave predictably enough to trust a serious process or product to it.
View use caseNobody understands the generated code anymore
The software grows fast, but its structure and technical choices have become so opaque that changes are getting riskier and riskier.
View use caseWe've vibe-coded ourselves into a corner
With AI coding tools it went incredibly fast at first. Now new changes mainly make the project more complicated and you no longer know how to get out.
View use case
Afterwards you have...
Technical grip on what is there
Architecture, key dependencies and critical risks are clear again.
A prioritised rescue plan
You know what can stay, what really needs to change and in which order.
A decision on the follow-up approach
Fixing, partially rebuilding, developing further at a larger scale or doing nothing becomes a conscious choice.
What is included in this offer?
A technical diagnosis of one existing application or codebase, aimed at decision-making.
What we do
We look broadly enough to find structural causes, without turning it into a theoretical code review.
- Examining architecture and code quality
- Assessing dependencies and technical debt
- Reviewing authentication and authorisation
- Examining the data layer and relevant integrations
- Assessing deployment and error handling
- Reviewing tests, logging and monitoring
- Listing security risks at a high level
- Examining AI-specific failure modes
- Assessing maintainability and lock-in
What you get
You get a technical verdict you can actually base a follow-up on.
- Architecture overview
- Prioritised list of problems and risks
- What can stay
- What needs to be adjusted
- What may need to be redone
- Advice: fix / partially rebuild / rebuild
- Proposed order and size of the follow-up
- Technical debrief with a senior engineer
Out of scope
The Audit delivers understanding and a plan. Major fixes don't quietly become part of the analysis.
- Full repair of the codebase
- Complete rewrite
- Unbounded pentest or formal security audit
- Product development beyond small diagnostic changes
How it works.
- 01
Confirm the rescue goal
We determine which questions the Audit needs to answer and where the biggest uncertainty lies.
- 02
Reconstruct code + system
We read the architecture, code, deployment, data flows and relevant dependencies.
- 03
Prioritise problems
We distinguish cosmetic debt, development blockers and real production or security risks.
- 04
Rescue plan + debrief
You get a concrete route with what can stay, what needs to change and what makes sense next.
Why should you believe this?
Assessing an existing codebase takes more than an automated quality score. It takes senior engineers who can see which problems actually hurt.
View casesExisting software is where we work
A messy or AI-generated codebase is no reason to automatically start over.
Software engineering and AI
We look at both regular production-grade problems and AI-specific failure modes.
Follow-up work is not a requirement
If the best conclusion is that your current route is fine, the engagement can end there.