Find out what's actually
wrong with the code.
A full audit of complexity, duplication, and risk — then an incremental refactor that fixes it, module by module, without freezing feature work or betting on a rewrite.
A report you can act on, not just a diagnosis
Every audit ends in a prioritized plan — what to fix first, why it matters, and roughly how long it takes.
Complexity & hotspot mapping
Cyclomatic complexity and change-frequency data cross-referenced to find where debt actually costs the most.
Duplication & dead code
Repeated logic and unused code identified so consolidation removes weight without changing behavior.
Dependency & security risk
Outdated or vulnerable packages flagged with an upgrade path that doesn't break the app.
Test coverage gaps
Untested modules identified, with characterization tests added before they're touched during refactor.
Performance bottlenecks
N+1 queries, missing indexes, and slow endpoints traced back to the exact lines causing them.
Prioritized refactor plan
A sequenced list of fixes, scoped so feature work can continue alongside the cleanup.
Audited across the stacks most codebases run on
Tooling matched to the language — static analysis, complexity scoring, and dependency scanning for each.
Four stages, in this order, every time
Refactoring never starts before the audit is done — fixing the wrong thing first is how technical debt gets worse, not better.
Audit the codebase
Run complexity, duplication, dependency, and coverage analysis across the full repo.
Prioritize by impact
Rank issues by how often the affected code changes and how much risk it currently carries.
Refactor behind tests
Add characterization tests, then refactor module by module without changing external behavior.
Verify & hand off
Confirm test coverage and performance improved, then document what changed and why.
Built for codebases that got harder to change
Teams inheriting a legacy codebase
A new team or hire taking over code they didn't write, with no map of where the risk lives.
Products slowing down to ship
Features that used to take days now take weeks, with no clear reason why.
Pre-acquisition or pre-funding review
Due diligence on a codebase's health before it changes hands or gets a valuation.
Teams considering a full rewrite
Before committing to a rewrite, an audit shows whether incremental fixes get there cheaper.
Three ways to work together
Exact pricing depends on codebase size and how deep the refactor needs to go — scoped after a short discovery call.
Codebase audit
A standalone audit and prioritized report, delivered as a fixed-price engagement. Good as a first step.
- Full report + prioritized plan
- Fixed price, single deliverable
Hourly refactoring work
Ongoing refactor work sized to the audit's plan, adjusted as priorities shift alongside feature work.
- Weekly progress + working demos
- Scope adjusts as you learn
Code health retainer
Monthly reserved capacity to keep working through the backlog and prevent debt from creeping back in.
- Recurring complexity re-scan
- Monthly capacity reserved
Common questions
Cyclomatic complexity hotspots, duplicated logic, outdated or vulnerable dependencies, test coverage gaps, N+1 queries, and architectural inconsistencies. The output is a prioritized report, not just a list of complaints.
No. Refactoring is done incrementally behind tests, module by module, so the application keeps working and shipping features throughout. A full rewrite is only recommended when the audit shows it's genuinely cheaper than incremental fixes.
By cross-referencing complexity and change-frequency data — the files that are both hard to understand and edited most often are fixed first, since that's where technical debt costs the most time.
Yes. Refactoring is typically scoped as its own workstream with clear module boundaries, so it runs in parallel with feature work instead of blocking it, and changes are reviewed through the team's existing PR process.
Most audits cover PHP/Laravel, JavaScript/TypeScript (React, Next.js, Node), and WordPress codebases, since those make up the majority of client stacks. Other stacks can be assessed on request.
Yes, where it's missing. Characterization tests are added around a module before it's touched, so the refactor has a safety net and coverage improves as a byproduct of the work rather than a separate initiative.
Often paired with
Not sure how bad it actually is?
Send over repo access and a short description of what's slow or fragile. A prioritized audit follows from there.