Advisory & architecture
Senior judgment, on call. Your team builds; we help them decide what's worth building.
The team can build it. The question is what.
Multi-region or not, EKS or Cloud Run, buy or build the platform. Decisions like these are cheap to discuss and brutal to reverse.
What you get
Decision support
Options, tradeoffs, and a recommendation in writing. You decide with full sight.
Architecture reviews
Your design examined by people who have operated the failure modes it hides.
A standing second opinion
A monthly session and an async channel. Questions get answers in hours, not engagements.
Your team stays the builder
We never take the keyboard away. Capability compounds in your engineers, not ours.
How it runs
-
Frame
The decision or design on the table, the constraints, and what failure would cost.
-
Review
We dig into the architecture, the data, and the assumptions. Questions before opinions.
-
Recommend
A written recommendation with the tradeoffs honest and the dissent recorded.
-
Stay close
Monthly retainer or per-decision. Either way, the context never has to be rebuilt.
Where this differs
Common questions
Both work. One-off reviews suit single decisions; a monthly retainer suits teams that want a standing second opinion with context that carries over.
Yes, and we often do. The fastest way to lose your trust is to manufacture work. If the answer is your plan is sound, ship it, that is the report.
It can, but it never has to. The recommendation is written to be executable by your team; whether we are involved afterwards is a separate conversation.
Architecture diagrams as they exist (or honesty that they don't), access to the engineers closest to the problem, and the real constraints, including the political ones.
Ready when you are
Thirty minutes with the architect who would build it. No deck, no account manager, no follow-up sequence.