A full audit of your code with every issue documented,evidenced, and located — exact file, exact line. Plus asystem architecture review and a prioritized fix roadmap.Not a consultant's opinion. A case file. Delivered within aweek.
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.
A previous team, a vendor, an agency. You're about to build on top of it. You need toknow if the foundation holds.
Due diligence is coming. Better to find the problems first and address them than havesomeone else find them for you.
One incident is rarely alone. Once something breaks, the question becomes: what'snext?
Performance and reliability problems often have architectural roots. Finding themtakes more than logs.
Four audit areas. Every finding categorized, severity-scored, and linked back toits exact location in the code — not a summary. A documented case.
Code security and vulnerability assessment — authentication, injectionrisks, secrets, and dependencies. Every finding includes the exactlocation and a recommended fix.
Authentication & authorization flaws
Injection risks — SQL, XSS, command
Exposed secrets & credentials
Insecure data handling & input validation gaps
Dependency vulnerabilities
Code quality and reliability — error handling, edge cases, test coverage,and the technical debt that slows down every release and hides futurefailures.
Error handling coverage & edge case gaps
Test coverage & test quality
Dead code & accumulated tech debt
Deprecated dependencies
Race conditions & concurrency issues
System architecture — component coupling, data flow, database design,API structure, and whether the approach is compatible with the system'sstated goals at scale.
Component coupling & separation of concerns
Database schema & query efficiency
API design & versioning
Scalability bottlenecks
Approach vs. stated goals
Operational readiness — logging, monitoring, CI/CD, deploymentpractices, and alerting. The infrastructure that determines whether youfind the next problem before or after your users do.
Logging & monitoring gaps
CI/CD pipeline review
Environment configuration & deployment practices
Alerting coverage
Documentation state
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 start with a one-hour call to understand thecodebase, the tech stack, and what you need toknow. After an NDA is signed, you give us read-only repository access. We don't need anythingelse.
1 hour + repo accessOur engineers go through the codebasesystematically across all four audit areas. Everyfinding is documented with location andevidence as we go. We'll flag you if somethingneeds urgent attention before the report iscomplete.
Same or next business dayYou receive all four documents and awalkthrough session. The full report is yours atno cost. If you want Fora Soft to handle thefixes, that's a separate engagement we canscope on the spot — no obligation either way.
30–60 minute sessionStructured in layers — a one-page summary for leadership, full technical detailfor your engineers. Every part is ready to act on immediately.
An executive-level overview of the overall risk state of the codebase.Safe to share with your board, investors, or non-technical leadership. Nojargon — severity counts, top findings, and a clear verdict.
Every issue found, documented with: severity rating (Critical / High /Medium / Low), exact file path and line number, code snippet, impactdescription, and recommended fix. Nothing summarized away.
Observations on the overall architecture — what works, what's a liabilityat scale, and where the approach is incompatible with stated goals. Thisis where we flag the problems that can't be fixed with a pull request.
Issues sequenced by risk-to-effort ratio. What to fix this week, what tofix this quarter, what to plan for. Each item includes an effort estimate soyou can prioritize against your existing roadmap.
A company building an AI-powered call agent for insurance had their owndevelopment team. The product owner believed the project was close tolaunch and brought us in for a final review before going live.
We audited the codebase and found that the product wasn't nearcompletion — but more critically, that the fundamental architecture wasincompatible with the product's core requirement: a response latency under2 seconds. The system as built was producing 5-second response times,and no amount of optimization within the existing approach would bringthat below 2 seconds.
We documented exactly why — the processing pipeline, the sequentialblocking calls, the model invocation pattern — with specific code referencesfor every claim. We then outlined what a redesigned architecture would looklike to hit the 2-second target.
A launch that would have immediately exposed the product's core failure toreal enterprise clients was stopped. The team received a documented case —not a verbal opinion — explaining exactly what was wrong and how to fix it. Thefix roadmap gave the team a clear path forward rather than a post-launchcrisis. The product was redesigned before going to market, not after.
Anyone can write a list of problems. We write a brief. The report is also shareable — the executive summary is written for non-technical leadership, the full issue register is written for your engineers.
Every finding includes the exact file path and line number. Your engineers can go directly to the problem without interpreting vague descriptions.
Each finding is rated Critical, High, Medium, or Low based on exploitability and blast radius — not our judgment of what seems important.
Every issue comes with a recommended fix. Not "consider improving this" — a specific, actionable change your team can implement immediately.
The Risk Summary is written for your board and investors. The Full Issue Register is for your engineers. The Fix Roadmap connects both — priorities your team can act on immediately.
A code review is typically done during development — a developer checksanother developer's pull request. A code audit is a systematic, independentassessment of an entire codebase: security, architecture, quality, andoperations. The output is a structured report with severity-scored findings,not inline comments.
Read-only access to the repository. We sign an NDA before access isgranted. We don't need database credentials, production environmentaccess, or anything beyond the source code. If relevant, we may alsorequest access to architecture documentation or deployment configurationfiles.
Within one week — same or next business day after the discovery call inmost cases. We've built the process to be fast without cutting scope. Onefocused call gives us enough context to run the audit independently andcome back with a complete report.
Yes. The Risk Summary is written specifically for that purpose — it's non-technical, clear, and structured for a non-engineering audience. The FullIssue Register is for your engineering team. Most clients share the RiskSummary with investors and keep the technical detail internal.
We do this for qualified projects because a real audit demonstrates ourthinking better than any proposal could. If the report is useful and you wantus to handle the fixes or build something new, we talk about thatseparately. If you take the report and fix things internally, that's a goodoutcome too. We'd rather earn the engagement than charge for thediagnosis.
We take on audits where we can add genuine value — products with realtechnical complexity, meaningful stakes (fundraising, launch, scale), orsituations where an independent view changes the outcome. After thediscovery call, we'll tell you honestly whether we think it's a fit. If not, we'llsay so directly.
