MVP Review

Usually 5 to 10 business days after we receive full access.

Yes. Without the code we can only assess the product from the outside, which is not enough for a verdict on security or architecture.

The report explains why, what carries over and what the new foundation should look like. Even in a rebuild, the user flows, screens and data from the first version are kept.

Yes, as a separate project after the review. You are under no obligation to work with us on it.

A strategic session is for a working business deciding where to go next. The MVP Review is a technical and product assessment of a specific first version.

It includes one: the code, security and infrastructure checks. It also covers product logic, the interface, the business model and the plan for the next stage, which most code audits leave out.

Yes. We check the same things: code, security, data model, payments, hosting, product logic and the market. For a freelancer's work we also look at who holds the accounts and whether there are documents that assign the code to you.

Access to the product, the repository or an export from the AI builder, the hosting and the analytics. A list of the outside services the product uses (payments, email, the AI model provider) and of who holds each account speeds up the start. The review usually takes 5 to 10 business days after we receive full access.

Technical due diligence is done for a buyer or an investor before a deal, about someone else's company: a session costs $1,500 and a full review starts from $7,500. The MVP Review is done for the founder of a first version, from $3,000, and adds product logic, the market and an estimate of the next stage.

No. The review is paid in advance and is not credited toward later work. Several specialists work on every review, and the report is written so that you can use it with us, with your own developers or with any other team.

Often yes, when the verdict for a part is keep or fix. The minimum is a repository with a history of changes, a staging copy, backups that have been restored at least once and a short manual for the AI tools that work on the code. Changes to access rules and payments are worth a review by a developer before release.

The report says so, with the reasons: who already offers something similar, who would pay and how much, and how an investor would see it. In the first month and a half of the service, all four requests we received had close competitors that had launched six months to a year and a half earlier. Learning this before the next stage costs far less than learning it after.