Get ready for the technical review
standing between you and the wire.
A quarter of one YC batch shipped codebases roughly 95% AI-generated, and most founders in that position have never had anyone independently check the security or architecture. If your term sheet has a technical contingency, we produce the scorecard, architecture review, and remediation roadmap their technical partner expects, on a diligence timeline, not a normal engineering sprint.
The findings that sink term sheets aren't exotic.
They're the same handful of things that show up in almost every AI-built app: a database with row-level security switched off, a Stripe key sitting in the client bundle, an endpoint that returns any user's data if you change one number in the URL. A technical partner knows exactly what to look for. We find it first, on your timeline, and either fix it or tell you precisely what it will take.
- Critical vulnerabilities4 → 0
- Row-level security coveragepartial → full
- Exposed secrets3 → 0
- Vendor lock-in flags2 → documented
- Diligence package deliveredn/a → ready
Representative example of a diligence-readiness scorecard. Not a specific client.
Someone is about to look under the hood.
- Your term sheet has a technical due diligence contingency and a close date attached to it.
- The investor's technical partner asked to see the codebase, or asked to talk to your CTO, and you don't have one.
- You genuinely don't know what percentage of your codebase is AI-generated, or how thoroughly it's been checked.
- Nobody has ever run a real security or architecture audit on the product you're raising on.
- You're quietly worried about what a real review would surface, and the deal timeline doesn't leave room to find out slowly.
Built for a diligence clock, not a normal sprint.
- DAY 0Rapid intake.
Read the term sheet's technical contingency language and get repository and infrastructure access, same day.
- DAY 1–2Security scorecard.
Full audit against the findings that actually sink deals: exposed keys, disabled row-level security, unauthenticated endpoints, and missing test coverage.
- DAY 1–3Architecture review.
Map the system, flag scaling ceilings, single points of failure, and vendor lock-in, including no-code platform dependencies investors ask about directly.
- DAY 3Remediation roadmap.
A prioritized list written for a technical partner to read, with realistic timelines and cost to fix each item.
- ONGOINGFix the blockers.
Remediate on the diligence clock, and separate what's fixable before close from what needs a documented post-close commitment.
- HANDOFFDeliver the package.
Scorecard, architecture document, remediation roadmap, and before-and-after evidence, ready to hand to their technical partner directly.
A package that stands on its own with a technical reader.
- A security scorecard. Independently produced, not self-reported, with every finding tied to specific evidence.
- An architecture review document. System map, scaling ceilings, and vendor lock-in flagged plainly.
- A remediation roadmap. What's fixed already, what's fixable before close, and what needs a post-close commitment.
- Direct fixes for close-blocking issues. Not just a list, actual remediation on the clock you're working against.
- A package written for a non-founder reader. Handed directly to an investor's technical partner, no translation required.
Priced for a deal timeline, not a leisurely one.
A $1,500 Rapid Diagnostic is available for an initial read before the full scorecard. Final remediation scope depends on what the scorecard finds and how many days remain before close.
Fixed fee. The package you hand to their technical partner, delivered in 2 to 3 business days.
Fixing the close-blocking findings before your deal timeline runs out.
See the full pricing breakdown for every service.
If any of this sounds like you.
"An investor wants to see the code, and I'm not sure what they'll find."
You raised on a great product that's mostly AI-generated and diligence is in two weeks. We get you a clean bill of health, or a credible plan to one, fast.
"A potential acquirer's engineers want to review our stack."
Same rigor, same deliverable, whether the reviewer is a VC's technical partner or an acquirer's engineering lead.
What founders ask before diligence.
How fast can you turn this around?
The security scorecard and architecture review typically take 2 to 3 business days once we have access. If your close date is inside a week, tell us that in the first message and we'll structure the engagement around it.
Will you talk directly to our investor's technical partner?
Yes. The deliverable is written to be handed to a non-founder technical reader, and a senior engineer can join a call with their technical partner if that's useful to move things along.
What if you find something bad?
We tell you plainly, the same day we find it. Most findings, even serious ones like disabled row-level security or exposed keys, are fixable in days, not months. We separate what's fixable before close from what needs a documented post-close commitment.
Do you sign an NDA?
Yes, standard practice for this engagement. We're regularly inside pre-close codebases and treat access accordingly.
What if diligence closes in under a week?
Say so immediately. We can compress the scorecard and architecture review into a rapid pass and prioritize only the findings that are actually deal-relevant, with a clear list of what gets a full fix now versus a committed timeline after close.
Can this double as our first real security audit?
Yes, and for most founders going through diligence for the first time, it is. The scorecard and findings are the same rigor as our standalone AI App Security Audit, just packaged and paced for a diligence deadline.
Send us the repo and the close date. We'll move on your timeline.
A senior engineer reads your actual code and gives you a straight assessment. No sales engineer, no junior.