The truth about your technology,before you invest in it
Independent technical audits and practical AI automation, delivered by senior engineers who hold no stake in the code they review.
Capital rides on technology the people funding it cannot judge
Founders trust their teams. Investors trust the pitch. A working demo and a convincing deck answer none of the questions that decide the outcome: whether the system survives growth, whether the data is protected, how reliably the team ships, and what hidden cost lands after the deal closes.
Verax removes that uncertainty. We read the technology independently and turn technical observation into a picture of risk the business can act on — not the longest possible list of faults, and not a generic checklist score.
Four commitments that make a verdict worth having
The same standards govern both service lines. An audit that cannot be trusted is worse than no audit, and automation whose effect cannot be measured is worse than none.
- § 01
Independent
We work for the person funding the decision, never for the team being reviewed. We hold no stake in the code we look at, and no platform of our own to sell into it.
- § 02
Evidence-based
Every finding is backed by code, configuration or data. We keep confirmed fact separate from assumption, and we say plainly where the granted access did not let us verify a claim.
- § 03
Actionable
You get a sequence you can act on — findings ranked by business impact, with effort estimates — not a catalogue of complaints sorted by technical severity.
- § 04
Senior-only
The people who scope the work are the people who do it. Principal architects end to end, no juniors staffed onto your review.
Technical audit
Investor-grade technical due diligence: one independent read on whether the technology can carry the business. Scope adapts to the product and to the decision you need to support.
What we assess
Architecture & feasibility
How the system is built, whether the key technical decisions match current and future business needs, and where the bottlenecks and critical dependencies sit
Security & data handling
Access control, storage and transfer of data, configuration, and the main zones of exposure. Readiness for relevant compliance practice where the agreed scope calls for it
Code quality & delivery
Structure and maintainability, test automation, the release process, CI/CD, and the sources of technical debt — how expensive and how slow this product will be to develop next year
Team capability
Distribution of responsibility, coverage of key competencies, knowledge transfer, and dependence on individuals. Not a personal appraisal — the team's ability to sustain and grow the product
Scalability & reliability
How the system behaves as load grows, which components become failure points, and how manageable the cloud infrastructure, monitoring, redundancy and recovery are
How the audit runs
- WS / 01
Scope & access
We agree which decision the audit supports and which risks concern you most, then set the boundaries and the access. Read access is normally enough
- WS / 02
Assess
We review architecture, security, code, pipelines and practices, and interview the people responsible for them
- WS / 03
Test & verify
We validate claims against code, configuration and data — never against slides. Confirmed facts stay separate from assumptions
- WS / 04
Score & rank
Findings are ranked by business impact, not only technical severity: what can halt the product, expose data, inflate cost, or complicate integration after a deal
- WS / 05
Report & advise
You receive the findings, the risk matrix and a sequenced remediation roadmap — and we walk you through them
What you receive
- § 01
Executive summary
A plain-language verdict a non-technical stakeholder can act on: overall condition, key constraints, strengths, and the risks that need attention
- § 02
Risk matrix
Every material finding, ranked by severity and business impact
- § 03
Technical report
Architecture, security, code, process and infrastructure in full detail, with the evidence behind each conclusion
- § 04
Remediation roadmap
A recommended sequence, with priorities and effort estimates
AI automation
We automate the busywork that is worth automating and leave the rest alone. Every workflow carries a baseline and a before-and-after number; if it does not pay for itself, it does not ship.
Where automation pays off
Operations
Data entry, system sync, reconciliation, approvals
Documents
Extraction, classification, validation, structuring
Support
Triage, routing, draft replies, escalation
Engineering
Review aid, test scaffolds, migrations, documentation
Analytics
Data preparation, summaries, scheduled reports, alerts
Finance & admin
Invoice capture, reconciliation, onboarding, compliance logs
How the work runs
- WS / 01
Map
We sit with the work and measure it: time, volume, and what the errors cost
- WS / 02
Qualify
We keep only the tasks where AI behaves the same way every time and the payoff is real. We will tell you where it does not belong
- WS / 03
Build
Senior engineers build it into your real systems, with review points wherever judgment is involved
- WS / 04
Measure
We report the hours and the money returned, against the baseline you started from
- WS / 05
Hand over
We document it, train your team, and step away. You own it
What we leave behind
- § 01
Working automation
Running inside your systems — not a demo, not a prototype
- § 02
Measurement dashboard
Accuracy, time saved and cost, all against your baseline
- § 03
Documentation
How it works, where the review gates are, and how to change it
- § 04
Handover & training
Your team runs it without us
What we assess, technically
Infrastructure
AWS, GCP, Azure, Kubernetes, Terraform
Backend
Python, Go, Node.js, Java, PHP
Frontend
React, Angular, Vue, TypeScript
Mobile
Swift, Kotlin, React Native, Flutter
Databases
PostgreSQL, MySQL, Redis, Elasticsearch
Messaging
Kafka, RabbitMQ, SQS, Pub/Sub
What people ask before commissioning
A description of the product and its stage, the main stack, the decision you are about to make, and your timing. From that we propose a relevant scope, the format of the engagement, a schedule and a price.
Weeks, not months. The exact span depends on the agreed scope and on how quickly access is granted. We fix the schedule before work begins and do not extend it unilaterally.
Normally no. Read access to code, architecture materials, configuration and documentation is usually enough. The exact access is agreed before the start, and we work strictly within it.
An NDA is signed before any access is granted. Findings belong to whoever commissioned the audit. We do not reuse client material, and we do not disclose that an engagement took place without permission.
The audit identifies, verifies and ranks problems. If you then want help implementing the recommendations, we can bring in senior architects and engineers — but that is agreed as a separate engagement, precisely so the independence of the audit stays visible and the report never becomes a quote for work you do not need.
A pentest attacks a running system to find exploitable weaknesses. An audit reads the whole picture — architecture, code, delivery process, team and infrastructure — and answers whether the technology can carry the business. Security is one of five areas we assess, not the whole exercise.
Start with a short call
Describe the product, its stage, the main stack, the decision you need to support and your timing. We come back with a relevant scope, a format, a schedule and a price. A senior engineer replies within one business day.