Architecture map
A view of components, dependencies, integration boundaries, and critical data flows.
← All services
Architecture & Code Audit
Understand the code before the next big decision.
Get an independent review of a codebase you own, inherited, or are about to extend. Separate urgent risks from optional improvements and make the next investment easier to scope.
Technical leaders deciding what to refactor, retain, or replace
Sound familiar?
Technical debt discussions are long on opinion and short on evidence.
A vendor handover has left gaps in understanding.
You need a scoped improvement plan before committing more development budget.
What you take away
Deliverables you
can actually use.
The starting package covers one application and its core architecture. We confirm the exact boundary together.
Evidence-based code review
Findings on maintainability, coupling, dependency risks, testability, and operational behavior.
Prioritized decisions
What to retain, refactor, replace, or investigate, with reasoning and effort ranges.
Technical walkthrough
A review with your team and an actionable handover package.
A practical guide
Read the architecture through the work it must support.
An architecture review becomes useful when it explains why the application is difficult to change or operate. Start with an important workflow and follow its responsibilities through the code. The objective is a set of decisions supported by evidence from the actual system.
How to do it yourself
First, establish the application’s purpose and constraints. Ask which changes are hard, which incidents recur, and which workflows matter most. Build the code and run a representative example so the review starts from an observable baseline rather than a diagram alone.
Map the main components, data stores, integrations, and deployment boundaries. Follow one business operation through them. Identify who owns each rule and where the same responsibility appears in several places. Record dependencies that are surprising or difficult to explain.
Choose areas for closer inspection based on those findings. Examine coupling, error handling, state management, access boundaries, and testability. Use concrete code paths and examples to explain concerns. Distinguish a stylistic preference from a decision that creates operational or maintenance cost.
Check the findings against evidence from tests, changes, and incidents. A component that looks complicated may encode necessary domain behavior; a simple-looking connection may hide an important failure mode. Discuss the interpretation with the maintainers before recommending a direction.
Finish with a small set of prioritized decisions: what to retain, improve, replace, or investigate further. Give each recommendation a reason, a bounded first step, and a way to check the result. Leave a readable map and a backlog the team can use in its next planning discussion.
How we approach the work
Our approach combines .NET architecture and domain-driven design with experience in scientific, industrial, and commerce applications. We examine how the software reflects the business it serves. This helps us judge whether a boundary supports real responsibilities and where changes are likely to have unintended effects.
We map the application, inspect the highest-value areas, and review the evidence with the technical team. Recommendations account for existing constraints and the cost of migration. The handover gives decision-makers a clear view of immediate risks and longer-term improvement options.
The tools behind the work
We use repository history, the .NET build and diagnostic tools, dependency information, and diagrams of actual responsibilities. xUnit and the existing test suite provide evidence about protected behavior. SQL Server Query Store can help examine database-related findings when the application uses it and the required data is available.
SDD, Specs Driven Development, links architectural findings to requirements, proposed specifications, and improvement issues. Recording the decision and its acceptance criteria makes the audit useful during later implementation, when the team needs to understand why a change was proposed.
Explore the tools
Ready to begin
What we need
from your team.
- Repository and build instructions
- Application context and key business workflows
- A technical contact and relevant operating documentation
A few useful answers
Before we start.
Is this the same as a Testing Audit?
No. The Architecture & Code Audit focuses on the structure and maintainability of the application. The Testing Audit focuses on your quality process, test suite, and confidence in releases.
How is the engagement priced?
The indicative estimate starts at €4,500, excluding VAT, for the stated package boundary. After a fit conversation, you receive a fixed quote with the exact deliverables, fee, and schedule. Work starts after acceptance; changes are quoted separately.
What happens after delivery?
You receive the working files, findings, and a handover session. Your team can take the next steps, or we can scope a follow-on engagement together.
Let’s talk about Architecture & Code Audit
Your next step
starts here.
Tell us what needs to change.
We’ll review your request and come back with a practical next step. No commitment required.
Prefer email? dev@roggemans.com ↗Discuss this package
A little context helps us make the conversation useful.
Keep exploring
Other useful starting points.
Assess / 01
Testing Audit
Know what your tests are missing.
5–10 working daysView engagement
Assess / 04
.NET Modernization Blueprint
Move your .NET platform forward.
1–2 weeksView engagement
Assess / 05
Cloud Cost & Performance Audit
Find out where your cloud budget goes.
5–10 working daysView engagement