Code & Architecture Audit

Depends on codebase size, audit depth, and timeline. Typical ranges: small-to-mid codebase, standard audit, 3–4 weeks: $20K–40K. Larger codebase or deeper review including security and infrastructure: $40K–80K. Technical due diligence on a tight deal-cycle timeline: $30K–60K depending on the target. Post-incident root-cause analysis: $15K–35K. We give a fixed-scope proposal within 7 days of scoping — actual price, not estimate range.

Standard audit: 3–4 weeks of audit work, plus the 7-day proposal window and 1-week kickoff. Deep audits with security and infrastructure scope: 6–8 weeks. Technical due diligence on a compressed timeline: 1–2 weeks if the deal demands it. Post-incident analysis: 1–3 weeks depending on incident complexity. Critical findings are surfaced the week we find them — you don't wait for the final report to learn about a serious vulnerability.

A structured written report (typically 30–80 pages depending on scope) with: executive summary for non-technical stakeholders, methodology and scope, code quality findings with concrete metrics, architecture analysis with diagrams, security findings (OWASP Top 10, dependency CVEs, IAM posture), performance and scaling analysis, infrastructure assessment, DevOps maturity benchmarking, and a prioritized remediation roadmap with severity ratings and cost estimates. The written report is paired with a live walkthrough — we present it to your team and answer questions in person or over video.

Both. The audit doesn't care who wrote the code. Common scenarios: internal team wants an outside opinion on architecture decisions, founder inherited a codebase from a previous team or agency, CTO joined a company and wants an independent baseline before making changes, company is considering acquiring a target and needs technical due diligence, post-incident retrospective needs an external perspective. The audit is the same regardless of the code's origin.

Yes — and we'll be honest about it. Rewrite is almost always more expensive than founders expect, and the right answer is usually 'incremental refactor with strong test coverage' rather than 'rebuild.' But sometimes the right answer really is rewrite — when the original architecture can't bend to current needs, when the dependency stack is unsupported, when the team can no longer reason about the system. We give you the structured case for both paths and let you make the call with full information.

Yes. Technical due diligence is a significant portion of our audit work. We assess the target company's technology asset — code quality, architecture risk, security posture, scalability headroom, technical debt density, team practices, key-person dependencies, and the cost of bringing the system to current standards. Reports are written to be useful to both technical and non-technical investors. We work to the deal's timeline, not ours.

Yes. Infrastructure audit covers cloud architecture quality (AWS, Azure, GCP), Infrastructure as Code (Terraform, Pulumi), Kubernetes posture if applicable, cost waste and FinOps opportunities, and reliability posture against the cloud provider's Well-Architected Framework. Security covers OWASP Top 10 vulnerability checks, dependency CVE scanning, IAM and secrets management review, network segmentation, and authentication and authorization patterns. We pair with specialized penetration testing firms when the engagement requires a full pen test — we don't pretend to replace dedicated pen testers.

Your call. Some clients hand the report to their internal team as the roadmap and execute themselves. Some hand it to investors or acquirers as part of due diligence. Some use it to evaluate vendors for the implementation work. Some hand it to a different agency they trust for implementation. Some hire IDT for implementation under a separate Managed Retainer or Fixed Scope engagement. Some decide the right answer is 'do nothing right now' and the audit confirms that. All are legitimate outcomes — we don't measure success by whether we win the follow-on work.

The audit is independent. We sell the audit as the engagement, the price reflects that, and the findings do not change based on whether you hire IDT for follow-on work. If implementation is the right next step and you want IDT to lead it, we'll quote that separately. If another firm is a better fit for the implementation, we'll say so. Our model only works long-term if the audits are trustworthy — which means the recommendations have to be honest, not engineered toward whatever wins us the next contract.