Know what's ready.
Know what comes next.
The Delivery Readiness Assessment is a two-to-three-week engagement. We ground Voyager in your system, verify the release gates, and give your team a clear plan—file:line evidence for the work, plus the stakeholder context around each decision.
{
"baseline": {
"architecture": { "value": 74 },
"moduleQuality": { "value": 65 },
"security": { "value": 65 },
"techDebt": { "value": 85 }
},
"confidence": "medium",
"next": { "signalsReviewed": 101, "priorityActions": 12 }
}Advice doesn't ship. Before you bet a launch, an acquisition, or a client on a codebase, turn the evidence into an ordered plan — what is ready, what needs attention, and what your team should do first.
Six lenses. One decision-ready picture.
Everything comes together in one grounded assessment, with every claim tied to the code and every recommendation connected to a clear next action.
A four-part baseline
Architecture, Module Quality, Security, and Tech-Debt—scored 0–100, with confidence on every number and a module-by-module view of where attention will have the most impact.
Release gates with clear next steps
Release prerequisites, dependency health, tests, formatting, and compatibility—each shown with evidence and paired with the work needed to move it.
Business impact, quantified
Every exposure with file:line evidence and the business context around it: what's exposed, who can reach it, the potential liability, and what it costs to fix.
Privacy, mapped
Every flow tagged with the personal data it touches — location, camera, push tokens, device IDs — surfacing undisclosed third-party leaks and consent checks that don't line up. A data map your counsel can use.
Where maintenance is getting expensive
Churn × complexity hotspots, systemic test gaps, duplication, and verified dead code—the tech debt most likely to slow the next change, ranked.
A map of your own system
Business rules with enforcement points, state machines, module dependencies, and plain-English flows. Documentation your team keeps, whatever you do next.
The same finding, translated for every room.
Engineers get file:line evidence and a concrete fix. Stakeholders get the exposure, reach, and effort around the same signal—every figure sourced in the report. Sample data from a real, anonymized assessment.
Sourced to statute in the report — illustrative, not legal advice.
The 101-cluster catalog, distilled to what matters now.
Deferring a risk is recorded as a business decision — with a date.
Every fix sized in days, not story points.
Exposure written in people, not CVEs.
Two to three weeks, start to plan.
No embedded team, no six-month discovery. A tight engagement with a hard end date and a concrete artifact at every step.
Ground, then survey
We learn the domain, intended architecture, and release goals with your team. Then we map the system, identify what needs attention, and establish the baseline for the work ahead.
Findings and walkthrough
You get the baseline, the release gates, and the full evidence catalog—walked through live in engineering terms, with a stakeholder view for the decisions around it.
The sequenced plan
Findings become an ordered remediation plan—safety first, refactors after—with effort estimates per fix. Run it with your team, or have us own the remediation with your engineers reviewing each release.
A baseline that shows its blind spots.
Every score carries confidence, and every run discloses exactly what automated analysis did and did not cover. Your team can see how much weight to give each signal.
- Confidence level on every score and finding
- Coverage gaps disclosed — never papered over
- Deterministic evidence — rerun it, get the same numbers
- Policy-backed guardrails keep critical release risks visible
{
"evidence": {
"sourceCoverage": "100%",
"fileAndLine": true,
"gaps": "disclosed"
},
"decisions": {
"signalsReviewed": 101,
"priorityActions": 12,
"effortIncluded": true
},
"repeatableBaseline": true
}Questions, answered.
What exactly do we get?
A four-dimension baseline, release-gate status with next steps, the full findings catalog with file:line evidence, a documented system map—business rules, state machines, and flows—and a sequenced remediation plan. It is consolidated into a PDF you can share with your team, buyer, board, or client.
How is this different from hiring a consultant to review our code?
Expert review provides context and judgment. The assessment adds deterministic scoring, evidence-backed findings, and disclosed blind spots, giving your team a repeatable baseline to rerun after the work and measure what changed.
What do you need from us?
Read-only access to the repository and about an hour with someone who knows the system, so the assessment reflects the domain, intended architecture, and release goals. No production access required.
Does this only cover security?
No—security is one of six lenses. The same run baselines architecture, module quality, and tech debt, checks your release gates, maps where personal data flows, and documents the system's business rules. The sample above comes from a real, anonymized assessment.
What happens after the assessment?
Your team can run the plan as-is—it's written to be executable, with effort estimates per fix. Or we can own the remediation with your team's review, bundle the work into releases, and track every action to done.
How much does it cost?
Pricing is scoped to the size and shape of the codebase. Request an assessment below and we'll set up a short call—you'll have a clear quote before any work starts.
Know where your release stands.
Leave your email and we'll set up a short scoping call — you'll have a quote before any work starts. Two to three weeks later: a grounded baseline and a working plan.