Teams usually ask for an architecture review at one of three moments: before a big build, before a launch, or after an outage. In each case the useful output is the same: a ranked list of risks, each with a concrete fix and a rough cost.
What we look at
- Data: where each kind of data lives, who can read it, how it is backed up, and how long a restore really takes.
- Trust boundaries: every place where data from outside enters the system, and what checks it before use.
- Failure modes: what happens when a database, a region, a third-party API or a queue stops working.
- Identity and secrets: who and what can access production, and where keys and passwords are stored.
- Deployment: how a change reaches production, and how fast it can be rolled back.
- Observability: whether the team would notice a problem before customers do.
- Cost: what drives the monthly bill, and what it will be at ten times the traffic.
How it runs
- 01A kick-off call to agree on scope and the questions that matter most to you.
- 02Read-only access to diagrams, code, infrastructure definitions and dashboards.
- 03Interviews with the people who build and run the system. They know where the problems are.
- 04A written report and a walk-through meeting.
What the report contains
- A one-page summary for leadership: the three to five risks that matter most.
- A full list of findings, each with severity, evidence, a recommended fix and a rough effort.
- Quick wins that can be done in a week.
- An updated architecture diagram that matches what is actually running.
What it does not contain
No vague advice like "consider improving security". Every finding names the component, shows the evidence, and says what to change. If we would not be willing to make the fix ourselves, it does not go in the report.
Today the Axieo team applies this standard (evidence, a named component, a recommended fix) to two audits.