You don't need to know which audit you need before you start. Pick the symptoms that match your situation, and we'll map them to the right review. Recognize only one or two symptoms?
A Focused Technical Review is a short way to check whether a full audit is warranted.
Common warning signs include:
Recommended audit: Infrastructure & DevOps Audit
Use these ranges to choose a starting point. Larger systems, regulated environments, urgent reviews, penetration testing, certification, and implementation are scoped separately.
Review a product built rapidly with AI tools, contractors, or inherited MVP code before it reaches production.
A targeted review of one technical question, product area, repository, or cloud account.
Identify cloud waste, reliability risks, deployment weaknesses, and operational gaps.
Assess whether the product architecture and codebase can support growth, handover, or enterprise use.
An independent assessment of technical risk for investment, acquisition, funding, or ownership transfer.
The ranges above cover a defined baseline. The final price depends on the size of the system, the quality of available evidence, and the depth of assurance you need.
More repositories, services, environments, cloud accounts, and integrations increase the number of dependencies and failure paths we need to trace. Typically increases scope: multi-tenant platforms, event-driven systems, legacy integrations, and multiple production environments.
Read-only access to repositories, cloud platforms, dashboards, and delivery tools keeps the review efficient. Missing documentation or screenshot-only access requires more reconstruction and validation. Typically increases scope: incomplete records, restricted access, and limited stakeholder availability.
A growth-stage product review is different from an assessment supporting an enterprise deal, investment, or regulated launch. Higher-stakes decisions require more evidence and stronger validation. Scoped separately: penetration testing, load testing, compliance certification, and legal or IP review.
Standard packages assume remote delivery within the stated timeframe. Urgent due diligence, parallel senior review, onsite workshops, and remediation support require a separate estimate. Usually separate: implementation, retesting, and ongoing advisory support.
Every audit follows a clear process. Your team is mainly involved at the start, during stakeholder interviews, and in the final review.
You describe the concern, the systems involved, and the decision the audit needs to support. We confirm the package, scope, timeline, price, NDA, and access method before work starts.
From your team: a short brief or completed questionnaire.
We collect the repositories, architecture documents, configurations, pipelines, dashboards, and operational evidence included in the scope. Read-only access is the default; exports can be used where direct access is not possible. Production write access is not part of the standard audit scope.
From your team: access to the agreed systems and documentation.
We speak with the people who build, manage, and operate the product to understand decisions, constraints, and gaps that may not be visible in the technical evidence.
Senior engineers review the evidence manually and use automated scans where useful. We compare the documented design with how the system actually works in production.
Each finding is linked to evidence and ranked by technical severity and business impact. You receive an executive summary, findings register, system map, and prioritized 30/60/90-day roadmap.
We walk technical and business stakeholders through the results, answer questions, and clarify which risks should be addressed first.
Typical timeline: five business days for a Focused Technical Review and two to four weeks for full audits or technical due diligence.
Technical audits require access to sensitive systems and evidence. Before work starts, we agree on access, data handling, and confidentiality requirements and adapt the review to your security policies.
An NDA and the rules for handling audit materials are agreed before any sensitive evidence is shared.
Access is limited to the systems and evidence included in the agreed scope. Read-only permissions are used wherever possible.
When direct access is restricted, we can work with exports, controlled walkthroughs, or evidence provided inside your environment. Production write access is not part of a standard audit.
Audit materials are available only to the specialists assigned to the engagement. The delivery method for sensitive findings and any retention requirements are agreed before the audit begins.
These examples show what happened after Mad Devs identified infrastructure inefficiencies and helped implement the recommended changes.
