02 / Production readiness
Know what will fail before customers do.
A fixed-scope technical assessment of architecture, security, data, evaluations, deployment, and operations for AI products moving toward production.
The prototype is starting to carry risk.
Most teams do not need a rebuild by default. They need evidence about what is safe to keep, what must change, and what blocks the next release.
- The product is moving toward real users
- Auth, payments, or customer data are involved
- The team cannot explain failure paths
- Deployment or every change feels risky
- A client, investor, or security review is approaching
The review follows the risk.
- 01Architecture and tenancy
Boundaries, environments, dependencies, and the shape of the system under real use.
- 02Identity, secrets, and access
Authentication, authorization, data exposure, privileged operations, and ownership.
- 03AI behaviour and evaluations
Models, prompts, tools, fallbacks, representative cases, and release criteria.
- 04Deployment and operations
Observability, error handling, cost controls, rate limits, and incident paths.
You leave with a decision.
- 01Executive summary
The short version of what is safe, urgent, and blocking.
- 02Risk register
Findings with severity, evidence, ownership, and a suggested fix.
- 03Keep, change, or rebuild decisions
A reasoned path that preserves useful work before proposing replacement.
- 04Prioritized remediation plan
A sequence your team can use for the next release or engineering engagement.
- 05Technical appendix
Enough detail for engineers to act without repeating the review.
03 / Process
A short review with a written finish.
Access, evidence, findings, and a decision you can carry into the next milestone.
- 01
Access and context
We agree the critical workflow, environment, people, and evidence required.
- 02
System review
We inspect the repository, architecture, integrations, data, and operational paths.
- 03
Critical-flow verification
We test the paths that matter to users, money, data, and the next release.
- 04
Findings session
We explain the evidence, tradeoffs, and the decisions behind the priority order.
- 05
Written handover
You receive the summary, risk register, remediation path, and technical appendix.
What this is not.
- Not a free estimate
- Not a penetration test
- Not compliance certification
- Not an automatic rebuild recommendation
It is a technical baseline for a team that needs to make the next decision with less uncertainty.
A sample of the rubric.
Each review asks whether the system has a clear owner, a measurable workflow, controlled access, representative tests, observable failure paths, and a safe handoff. This sample is illustrative, not a client report.
- 01Can the workflow be stated in one sentence?
If the job is not bounded, the system cannot be evaluated honestly.
- 02Can every tool action be approved or reversed?
Consequential operations need permissions, evidence, and a human path.
- 03Can a failure be seen and explained?
Logs, traces, alerts, and a runbook are part of the product.
Questions before the review.
Do you need the whole repository?
We need enough access to inspect the critical workflow, its data boundaries, integrations, deployment path, and the evidence behind the release decision.
Will you recommend a rewrite?
Only when the evidence shows that changing the current system is riskier than replacing a defined part of it.
Does this replace a security audit?
No. It reviews production risks in context, but it is not a penetration test or compliance certification.
Make the next release legible.
Bring the prototype, the deadline, and the part nobody trusts yet.
Request an assessment