Software architecture review and technical consulting
Technical consulting and software architecture review for people about to commit real engineering time, or who already regret the last six weeks. The useful outcome is a decision: build this, cut that, do not start until X is true.
What a software architecture review covers
A senior pass on product shape, stack, and risk. Typical questions: is this MVP scoped, should we rewrite, is the marketplace actually two apps, what will hurt in six months if we ship the obvious version.
- Architecture reviews of an existing codebase or a planned build.
- Technical consulting when founders are past the idea and short of an engineering lead.
- Product validation: what to build first so the next month of work is not wasted.
Who technical consulting is for
Founders and technical leads who want one accountable engineer's judgment. Not a fit for procurement theatre, multi-vendor bake-offs, or an advisor retainer with no written artifact.
How the review runs
You send the brief, the repo, or both. I read it, ask the few questions that change the recommendation, and come back with a written direction: keep, cut, sequence, risks.
If the honest advice is "do not hire me to build this", you get that. Selected work stays selected.
Is technical consulting a path into a build?
Sometimes. It is not a disguised sales call. If a build is a match, that is a separate scope.
Do you sign NDAs for architecture reviews?
Yes, when the material needs it. Most client work already stays private.
Ready to talk about this?
Send the brief, the repo, or the problem. I read every message and reply myself. Selected work only.
Discuss a review