Skip to content
OperationalLast ship · 4h agoIn flight · 6 engagementsReply within · 4hSenior partners onlyMMXXVIOperationalLast ship · 4h agoIn flight · 6 engagementsReply within · 4hSenior partners onlyMMXXVIOperationalLast ship · 4h agoIn flight · 6 engagementsReply within · 4hSenior partners onlyMMXXVI
SmartyDevs
← All practicesConsulting & Advisory
Advisory · 09

A second opinion, when it matters.

Independent architectural review by senior engineers who've shipped similar systems. The sparring partner your internal architect needs before consequential calls become regrets.

Start a conversationExplore all practices
§In this practice
§ 01The problem

The problem we solve

Every consequential architecture decision benefits from an outside, senior perspective — and most teams don't have anyone qualified to provide it. We do this work specifically: short, focused, senior, written. A second opinion delivered with confidence and trade-offs named.

§ 02Capabilities

What we review

  • 01Service decomposition and integration patterns
  • 02Database design, replication and consistency choices
  • 03Caching architecture
  • 04Eventing and async architecture
  • 05Multi-tenancy patterns
  • 06AI / ML system architecture
  • 07Cloud architecture and cost-aware design
  • 08Migration strategies (monolith decomposition, replatforms)
  • 09Specific RFCs your team has written
§ 03Deliverables

What you receive

  • Written review with strengths, risks and alternatives
  • Q&A session with your engineering team
  • Follow-up review of revised approach if requested
§ 04Stack

Areas we cover

Distributed systems
Data architecture
Cloud architecture
AI / ML architecture
Security architecture
Migration & modernization
§ 05Ideal for

Ideal for

  • → Engineering leaders facing a consequential design decision
  • → Internal architects wanting a senior sparring partner
  • → CTOs preparing to defend an approach to their board
  • → Companies pre-empting expensive architectural mistakes
§ 06Process

How an engagement runs

  1. 01

    Read the proposal

    We read the existing RFC, design document or codebase carefully. We come prepared.

  2. 02

    Working session

    Half-day or full-day deep discussion with the architect and senior engineers.

  3. 03

    Written review

    Strengths, risks, alternatives — written down within a week.

  4. 04

    Defend or revise

    Q&A with your team. Optional follow-up review of a revised approach.

§ 07Engagement

How to engage

01

Single Review

1 — 2 weeks

One specific design or RFC reviewed end-to-end with written report.

02

Architecture Review Retainer

Ongoing

Monthly availability for the major decisions your team encounters.

§ 08Common questions

Frequently asked.

01How is this different from Fractional CTO?

Fractional CTO is broader and continuous. Architecture review is narrow and on-demand for specific decisions. Many clients use both.

Have a problem worth solving well?

Tell us the outcome you want. We'll tell you what it takes — honestly, within a week, in writing.

Start a conversation