Honest technical advice from someone who builds, not just advises.
Software consulting should produce decisions, not decks. Architecture assessments, technology selection, build-vs-buy analysis, and vendor evaluation — delivered by someone who has shipped the work, not just reviewed it.
Need an objective technical assessment — architecture review, technology selection, or build-vs-buy analysis
Software consulting has a credibility problem. Most consultants:
- Present options without recommending one
- Produce reports that say "it depends" on every question
- Have no accountability for the quality of their advice
- Haven't shipped the kind of software they're advising on
Technical consulting from a practitioner is different:
Concrete recommendations: "Use Clerk for auth. Don't build your own. Here's why." Not "you could use Clerk, or Auth.js, or build your own — each has tradeoffs."
Accountability: The consultant who recommends an architecture should be willing to build it. If they won't build it themselves, they don't believe in it enough.
Practitioner knowledge: Advice on Next.js from someone who has shipped 40+ Next.js applications is different from advice from someone who has read about Next.js.
Common consulting engagements:
- Technical audit of existing codebase
- Architecture assessment before a significant build
- Technology selection for a new project
- Build vs buy analysis for a specific capability
- Technical due diligence for acquisition
Technical assessment with concrete recommendations and the reasoning behind them — not a presentation of options
Technical audit
current state, risks, recommendations
Architecture assessment
options, recommendation, tradeoffs
Build vs buy
analysis with cost estimates
Technology selection
recommendation with rationale
Written report
delivered, not presented in a deck
One honest number to start.
Fixed-scope, fixed-price. The number below is the starting point — final scope is built from your brief.
Technical assessment with concrete recommendations and the reasoning behind them — not a presentation of options
Three steps, every time.
The same repeatable engagement on every project. No surprises, no mystery, no billable ambiguity.
Brief & discovery.
We send you questions, then get on a call. Output: a written scope with every step, feature, and integration listed.
Build & ship.
Fixed schedule, weekly reviews. No scope creep unless you change the scope — and if you do, we reprice it transparently.
Warranty & retainer.
30-day warranty on every launch. Most clients stay on a monthly retainer for ongoing features and maintenance.
Why Fixed-Price Matters Here
Consulting deliverables are defined. A fixed-price for a specific assessment.
Questions, answered.
Codebase review + team interviews + written report: 1-2 weeks. The output is a written document with findings prioritized by severity and recommendations prioritized by impact.
Tell Ryel about your project.
Describe what you’re building and what outcome you need. You’ll have a written, fixed-price scope within the week.