Codebase audits, organizational diagnostics and confidential reports for the people who have to decide — written by a senior who reads the entire code personally and can defend every line of the findings in front of your engineers.
Somewhere between the codebase and the boardroom, information changes shape. Delivery problems become "minor delays." Architectural debt becomes "technical considerations." A provider's interests quietly become indistinguishable from yours. And decisions worth millions get made on filtered information.
The fix is old-fashioned: an independent senior who reads the actual code, interviews the actual people, and writes down what is actually true — in language engineering can't dismiss and the board can't misread.
Four instruments, often combined in one engagement. The findings hold up because I still build and ship systems myself — this is an engineer reading your code, not a slide deck. The signature pattern — a codebase audit followed by an organizational diagnostic — produced findings a Fortune 500 client valued at ~€2M in new contracts.
I personally study the codebase — not a sampled checklist, the code — and report on architecture, quality, risk and maintainability. Shippable to investors, steering committees and courts of hard questions.
Done for Fortune 500 strategic applications where recurring delivery problems had no visible cause.
When the code alone doesn't explain the problem: structured interviews with directors and engineering teams, process mapping, and a confidential report on what is actually happening between people, teams and incentives.
Includes full DevOps investigations — environments, promotion lifecycles, runbooks, tooling — across entire product portfolios.
Hired by clients to keep their providers honest: reviewing deliverables at code level, discovering risk early, running verification phases, and distinguishing the provider's interests from yours before they diverge expensively.
22 years on both sides of the SOW make the games easy to recognize.
Technical due diligence on software assets and teams. Strategy engagements — platform selection, ERP recommendation, data monetization. And for consultancies: proposal architecture and SOW authorship by someone who has personally signed every SOW of a 25-engineer division.
Every clause carries technical consequences; I write and read them accordingly.
Fixed scope, agreed up front, 100% remote in English or Spanish. Confidentiality is the default — most of this work is never publicly attributable.
One codebase, one architecture or one database estate. Findings, risk and recommendations in weeks — the standard first engagement.
Code plus organization: the dual-report pattern for situations where delivery keeps failing and nobody agrees on why.
Standing client-side review of a provider or critical program: deliverable review, milestone verification, and early warning when reality drifts from the plan.
Direct, confidential counsel to a CEO, CTO or board — the senior second opinion for decisions that are too expensive to get wrong.
A selection from the full project history — the most sensitive engagements in this practice are NDA-bound and absent by design.
Independence questions deserve straight answers — here are mine.
I'm paid by you and only you. I don't resell software, I don't take referral fees from vendors, and I don't bid on the implementation my own audit recommends unless you explicitly ask me to. The report's only loyalty is to what the code and the organization actually show.
A written report with two audiences in one document: findings and evidence at engineering depth, conclusions and options at board level. Direct language — what is true, what is risk, what to do — defensible enough to forward to investors or a steering committee.
Typically weeks, with scope fixed up front. A focused codebase or architecture audit is faster; a combined technical-plus-organizational diagnostic — reading the code and interviewing directors and teams — takes longer but answers the deeper question.
Yes — client-side provider oversight is a recurring engagement: code-level review of deliverables, risk discovery, verification phases, and separating their interests from yours before the divergence gets expensive. Done professionally and factually; the goal is a working relationship, not a war.
Describe the decision you're facing and what you suspect. The scope, the timeline and the price of finding out are all fixed before we start.