Architecture and design
We map how the system is actually structured, where the coupling and single points of failure sit, and whether the architecture can carry your roadmap or will fight it.
002Technical Due Diligence
Technical due diligence: know exactly what you are buying
Technical due diligence is a structured audit of the architecture, code, infrastructure, and delivery practices behind a product, run by senior engineers who have built and operated production systems. Our software due diligence is for investors, acquirers, and founders who need an honest, evidence-based read on a codebase before they buy it, fund it, or commit another year of budget to it.
Advsr001
What we assess
What our technical due diligence covers
We look at the whole system, not just the code. Each area gets concrete findings, a severity rating, and a recommended fix, so the diligence report supports a real decision.
Code quality
We read the code itself: consistency, test coverage, error handling, and the hotspots where most bugs and slowdowns originate. Tooling flags patterns, engineers judge what matters.
Security posture
We check authentication, authorization, secrets handling, dependency vulnerabilities, and data exposure paths, then rank what needs fixing now versus what can wait.
Infrastructure and DevOps
We review your hosting, CI/CD, environments, monitoring, and backup and recovery story. The question is simple: can you deploy safely and recover quickly when something breaks?
Scalability and performance
We identify the bottlenecks that will surface as load grows: slow queries, chatty services, unbounded jobs, and the parts of the stack that will not survive ten times the traffic.
Team and process
We look at how the code gets shipped: review practices, documentation, onboarding time, and key-person risk. Many technical problems are really process problems in disguise.
How it works
How we run a due diligence review
(4)- 1
Scope and access
We agree on the questions you need answered, then get read access to the repositories, infrastructure, and documentation. A kickoff call with your team fills in the history.
- 2
Hands-on audit
Senior engineers read the code, trace the architecture, run static analysis and dependency scans, and interview the people who work in the system daily.
- 3
Findings and roadmap
You get a written report: what is solid, what is at risk, and a prioritized roadmap that sequences fixes by business impact rather than engineering preference.
- 4
Walkthrough and handoff
We present the findings to your leadership and engineering team, answer the hard questions live, and leave you with a plan your own team can execute, with or without us.
Why Webisoft
Why buyers bring their diligence to us
Due diligence is only as good as the engineers doing it. Ours have shipped and maintained the kinds of systems they audit.
Senior reviewers only
Every review is done by engineers who have owned production systems, not junior analysts running a checklist. Findings come with the context of what it takes to fix them.
Business-first prioritization
We rank findings by what they cost you: outage risk, delivery speed, hiring drag, security exposure. You get a sequence of moves, not a wall of issues.
Full-stack coverage
Webisoft builds custom software, AI systems, and blockchain products, so we can review whatever is in your stack without handing parts of it to a third party.
No rebuild agenda
We do not audit code to sell you a rewrite. When the honest answer is that your system is fine, the report says so, and the roadmap focuses on the few things worth changing.
FAQ
Technical due diligence questions
(4)- Most technical due diligence reviews run two to four weeks depending on the size of the codebase and how many systems are in scope. A focused review of a single product can move faster, while a multi-service platform with several teams and repositories takes longer. Timelines also stretch when access provisioning or stakeholder interviews are slow to schedule.
- A well-run review should not. Reviewers typically work from read-only access to repositories, infrastructure, and documentation, and request only a few hours of interviews spread across the engagement. The engineering team keeps shipping while the review happens in parallel, since the work is observational rather than hands-on.
- A typical engagement ends with a written report of findings rated by severity, a prioritized technical roadmap tied to business goals, and a walkthrough session to discuss the results. Good reports are written so both executives and engineers can act on them, pairing each finding with its business impact and a recommended fix. Some reviews also include cost estimates for remediation.
- Investors and acquirers use it before committing capital, since it assesses the codebase, infrastructure, team dependencies, and hidden liabilities such as unmaintained components or licensing risks, and the findings often feed directly into valuation and deal terms. Founders commission the same assessment before a funding round, a major scale-up, or a rebuild decision, to get an independent read on what they own.
Diligence scope
What serious software due diligence actually examines
Useful due diligence goes beyond reading code. It connects architecture, team practices, and infrastructure to the business decision you are trying to make, whether that is a funding round, an acquisition, a scale-up, or a rescue.
Architecture assessment
We map the real system as it runs, services, data flows, and dependencies, and compare it against where the business is heading. The output identifies which parts will hold at 10x load, which will not, and which are fine but expensive to change, so investment goes where it matters.Code quality and maintainability
Static analysis with tools like SonarQube combined with manual reading of the modules that change most often, since churn hotspots are where quality problems cost real money. We look at test coverage where it counts, coupling between modules, and how long a new engineer would need before shipping safely.Security posture review
Dependency and vulnerability scanning, a review of authentication, authorization, and secrets handling, and a check of data exposure paths against OWASP guidance. This is a structured engineering review rather than a certified penetration test, and we say clearly when a dedicated pentest or compliance audit is the right next step.Scalability and cost analysis
We examine database query patterns, caching, queue depths, and cloud billing together, because performance and cost are the same problem viewed from two sides. Typical findings include unindexed queries that will fall over at scale and over-provisioned infrastructure that quietly burns budget.Team and process evaluation
Delivery speed is usually constrained by process, not talent, so we review how work flows from idea to production, where reviews bottleneck, and where knowledge concentrates in one person. Bus-factor risks and undocumented tribal knowledge appear in the report with concrete mitigation steps.Actionable technical roadmap
Findings are ranked by business impact and effort, then sequenced into a roadmap your team can execute, typically split into a 30-day, 90-day, and 12-month horizon. Each item states why it matters in business terms, so the document works for the board as well as the engineering team.
How due diligence runs
Four weeks from access to answers
(4)- 1
Scoping and access
We start by agreeing what decision the review needs to support, an investment, a rebuild-or-refactor call, a scaling plan, since that determines depth and focus. Then we set up read-only access to repositories, infrastructure, and documentation under NDA, with a clear data handling agreement. - 2
Evidence gathering
One to two weeks of code reading, automated scanning, infrastructure inspection, and structured interviews with engineers and product owners. Interviews matter because the gap between documented architecture and lived reality is usually where the risk hides. - 3
Analysis and validation
Draft findings are checked with your technical leads before anything is finalized, which catches misreadings and surfaces context an outsider cannot see. Every significant claim in the report is backed by a specific file, metric, or reproducible observation rather than opinion. - 4
Report and roadmap delivery
You receive a written report with ranked findings, a sequenced remediation roadmap, and an executive summary in plain language for non-technical stakeholders. We walk both audiences through it in separate sessions and remain available for follow-up questions while your team acts on it.
FAQ
Common questions about technical due diligence
(6)- The common triggers are before an acquisition or investment, when inheriting a codebase from an agency or departed team, when deciding between rewriting and refactoring, and when delivery has slowed and nobody can articulate why. A review is most valuable before a big commitment, since it is far cheaper to discover structural problems during diligence than after a purchase or a scaling push. It is less useful as a substitute for ongoing engineering leadership.
- A focused review of a single product typically takes two to four weeks. Cost scales with the number of repositories and services, the age and documentation quality of the codebase, and how deep the security and infrastructure portions need to go. A pre-acquisition review with legal exposure requires more rigor and evidence than an internal health check, and that difference should be priced in from the start rather than discovered midway.
- A proper review needs read-only access to source code, infrastructure configuration, issue trackers, and a few hours of interviews with key engineers. Reputable reviewers work under NDA, use scoped credentials that are revoked at the end, and never need write access or production data exports. If sensitive data is a concern, access can be limited to sanitized environments, though that reduces what the review can verify about production behavior.
- A penetration test tries to break into a system and reports what an attacker could do today. Technical due diligence is broader and forward-looking, covering architecture, code quality, scalability, cost, and team practices, with security as one chapter rather than the whole story. Many organizations need both, but in a different order: the diligence review first to find structural issues, then a pentest once the obvious gaps are closed, so the pentest budget is not spent confirming known problems.
- Look for findings tied to specific evidence, a severity ranking that reflects business impact rather than theoretical purity, and a remediation plan sequenced by effort and dependency. A red flag is a report that is all scores and no specifics, or one that recommends a full rewrite without costing the alternative. The report should also be readable by two audiences, with an executive summary that a board member can act on and technical detail an engineer can implement.
- Ask for the evidence behind each major finding, a query, a metric, a code reference, and have an internal engineer reproduce a sample of them. Cross-check severity claims against real incident history, since a codebase described as fragile should show up in the on-call record. It is also reasonable to share the report with the team that built the system and weigh their rebuttals, because a finding that survives informed pushback is one worth spending money on.
