An independent review of your system's technology choices, structural components, and workload fit — with a plain verdict on what's working, what's a liability, and exactly what to change to reach your goal. Delivered within a week.
The decisions that made sense when the system was smaller, simpler, or serving fewer users create drag at scale. The problem is that those decisions are invisible until something fails — and by then, the cost to fix them is a multiple of what it would have been earlier.
Performance problems with no clear cause are usually architectural. The bottleneck is somewhere in the design, not the code.
Migrating to microservices. Moving databases. Rebuilding a core service. The consequences of getting this wrong compound for years.
Systems built without a clear architecture document carry implicit assumptions that only surface when they're violated.
If the same categories of problems recur under different symptoms, the root cause is structural — not in any individual component.
Six areas. Every finding tied to your actual workload and stated objective — not to abstract best practices. The question isn't "is this good architecture?" It's "does this architecture get you where you're going?"
Language, framework, and runtime fit for the actual workload — not just the original use case. Library choices, build toolchain, and whether the stack creates unnecessary constraints on future development.
How responsibilities are divided, how tightly components are coupled, how data moves through the system. Whether the current pattern — monolith, services, event-driven — is the right choice for the workload.
Whether database choices match read/write ratios, concurrency patterns, and consistency requirements. Schema design, query efficiency, indexing strategy, and caching layer fit for the actual workload.
What fails first under 2×, 5×, and 10× current load — and at what threshold. Horizontal vs vertical scaling options, single points of failure, and the cost of scaling the current architecture vs redesigning it.
Failover mechanisms, graceful degradation, data consistency under failure, and recovery time expectations vs the architecture's actual capability. Whether reliability characteristics match what the product requires.
The architecture assessed against your specific 12-month target. What changes are necessary — not just nice-to-have — to reach it. What the current design costs to operate at that scale, and whether the math works.
One call. No obligation. A full architectural assessment by next week.
No commitment required. The review is yours regardless of what you decide next.
We spend one hour understanding your system, your stack, your current constraints, and the goal — the specific outcome you're trying to reach. You share repository access and any available architecture documentation. NDA signed before access is granted.
1 hour + repo accessWe assess the system across all six areas, with your stated goal as the reference point throughout. Every finding is documented with reasoning and tied back to the specific workload and objective you described in the discovery call.
Same or next business dayYou receive all four documents and a walkthrough session to go through the key findings and recommendations. The full review is yours at no cost. If you want Fora Soft to implement the changes, we can scope that immediately.
30–60 minute sessionStructured in layers — a one-pager for leadership, full technical analysis for your engineering team, and a clear action plan that tells you what to change first, why, and how.
A plain-language overview for non-technical stakeholders: overall risk level, the top three concerns, and a verdict on whether the current architecture supports the stated goal. Safe to share with leadership, board, or investors.
A component-by-component analysis with a verdict for each: Keep, Watch, or Change — and the reasoning behind it. Every finding is tied to the specific workload and goal, not to generic best-practice standards.
For every component marked Change or Watch: what specifically to change, why, how, and what the alternatives are. Where relevant, alternative technology choices are assessed and compared. Effort estimates included.
A one-pager mapping the top recommendations to business impact and effort. Designed to support internal prioritization — which changes are urgent, which are strategic, and which can wait. Useful for roadmap planning and stakeholder alignment.
A company building an AI-powered call agent for insurance had their own development team. The product owner believed the project was close to launch and brought us in for a final review before going live. The product had one non-negotiable requirement: response latency under 2 seconds.
We reviewed the architecture and found two things. First, the product wasn't close to launch — there was significantly more work remaining than the team understood. Second, and more critically, the architectural approach was fundamentally incompatible with the latency target. The system was producing 5-second response times, and the design could not physically achieve sub-2-second responses. The best possible outcome with the existing architecture was approximately 2 seconds, not less.
A launch that would have immediately and publicly failed the product's stated performance requirement was stopped before it happened. The team received a documented architectural analysis — not a verbal opinion — explaining exactly why the goal was unreachable and what a workable design would look like. The product was redesigned before going to market, not after.
A code audit finds what's wrong in the code. An architecture review finds whether the code is solving the right problem in the right way. Both are useful. They answer different questions.
Examines what's in the code — bugs, security issues, code quality, test coverage, dependency vulnerabilities.
Examines whether the overall design is sound — right technology choices, right structure for the workload, right approach for the target scale.
A code audit examines what's in the code — bugs, security issues, quality problems. An architecture review examines whether the overall design is sound: are the right technology choices being made, is the structure appropriate for the workload, will it hold at the target scale? The two are complementary — we offer both as separate services.
Yes — read-only repository access. We also find architecture documentation, ADRs (architecture decision records), and deployment configuration useful if they exist, but they're not required. We sign an NDA before access is granted. We don't need production credentials or database access.
Within one week — same or next business day after the discovery call in most cases. An architecture review is more focused in scope than a full codebase audit, which is what makes the fast turnaround possible. We're assessing structural decisions, not reading every line of code.
Neither. Mid-build is often the most valuable moment for a review — architectural decisions are still active but enough structure exists to evaluate. Pre-build reviews assess a proposed architecture. Post-build reviews assess what was built. All three are useful at different points.
Same model as our other reviews. A real assessment of your system shows our thinking better than any proposal. If the recommendations are useful and you want us to implement them, we scope that separately. If you take the review and act on it internally, that's a good outcome too. We'd rather earn the work than charge for the diagnosis.
Systems with real architectural complexity — meaningful scale, significant technical decisions ahead, or structural problems affecting outcomes. Not small prototypes or early-stage apps with no load. After the discovery call, we'll tell you honestly whether the review will be valuable for you at this stage. If it won't, we'll say so directly.
