What we will not claim

This is a new business. We have no client logos, no testimonials, and no case studies, and we are not going to manufacture any. If you find a services website in this niche showing five-star reviews and a decade of experience, it is worth checking whether any of it is verifiable, because a surprising amount of it is not.

Specifically, nowhere on this site will you find:

• Reviews, ratings, or testimonials, or the structured data that puts star ratings in search results.
• A client count, a project count, or a number of years in business.
• Case studies for work we cannot name and evidence.
• Logos of companies we have not worked with.
• Named engineer profiles for people who have not agreed to be listed.
• Statistics without a link to the primary source and a note on that source’s limitations.

What we offer instead is checkable: the technical claims on this site are correct, the research we cite is linked with its caveats stated, and we maintain a public list of widely-repeated claims in this niche that are false. You can read it on the sources and corrections page. Being right in public is the only credential we currently have.

Our conflicts of interest

We sell codebase reviews and we sell ongoing engineering. That means we make money if you buy a review and more money if the review leads to work. Every firm in this market has that incentive and most do not mention it.

Two things follow, and we would rather you hold us to them:

• A review is worth paying for only if you keep it regardless. Ours is yours whether or not you hire us, and you should decline to buy one from anyone who will not commit to that.
• A recommendation to rebuild is the most expensive thing we could tell you. If we ever make one, ask for the reasoning rather than the verdict, and get a second opinion. Our fix or rebuild guide is written to help you interrogate that recommendation, including when it comes from us.

Do we use AI tools?

Yes, daily. Declining to use them in 2026 would make us slower without making the work better, and a firm that claims otherwise is either not being straight with you or is handicapping itself on your budget.

The distinction that matters is not whether AI was involved. It is whether a person read the result, tested it, and can defend it. Ask us to walk you through any commit and explain why it is written that way and what would break if you changed it. Someone who understands the code answers immediately. That test works on any vendor, and we have written it up in how to vet an engineer so you can use it on us.

How to reach us

Email [no contact email configured], or send a request describing what you built and what is worrying you. We reply to everything. If we think you do not need us, we will say so rather than book a call.