New SaaS, CRM and e-commerce backends, and the products that already run: performance, handover, AI in a real workflow, and the requests that never reach the team.
Founders and product owners who need a new SaaS, CRM or e-commerce backend built, and who cannot afford a rewrite later.
An architecture that survives the second tenant and the first thousand users, a first slice in production, and a release path that stays repeatable as the product grows.
SaaS founders and teams facing slow CRM reports, API latency or rising resource usage.
A measured baseline, prioritized bottlenecks, scoped improvements and a before/after comparison on the same workload.
Owners inheriting a Laravel product from an agency or a departing developer, and teams needing continued backend delivery.
An ownership and dependency inventory, reproducible setup, critical-flow checks and a prioritized maintenance and release plan.
Teams connecting telephony, CRM and AI processing without losing traceability or control over customer data.
A scoped end-to-end workflow with structured output, idempotent jobs, retries, failure visibility and a human-review path.
Owners of an existing SaaS or CRM product who inherited the codebase or keep getting surprised by it, and have no technical director.
A fixed-scope audit: an inventory of what runs where, a risk list ordered by what it would cost if it broke, a review of the code and the infrastructure against what the product actually does, and a written report that says what to fix first and what can wait.
Owners whose requests arrive and nobody works them: a form that says thank you and creates no ticket, a promised callback with no task, telephony that reaches a mailbox instead of a card, applications that need a person to open one by one.
The whole path from a submitted request to a working list, traced and fixed: where the request goes, what happens when the next step fails, what a retry does, how a bad record is caught before a person opens it, and how you see a failure instead of discovering it.
Owners whose product has to reach a CRM, a telephony provider, an accounting system or a payment gateway, and can no longer do it by hand.
One traced path in and out: who owns the record, what happens when the other side is down, what a retry does, and how a failure becomes visible instead of arriving as a delayed surprise.
Every tile is a platform from the work history. Follow one to see it running.
Project or ongoing retainer. Scope, schedule and fees are agreed after an initial review. I reply within one business day and name the next step before you commit to anything.
A clear scope, focused goals and an agreed delivery plan. Useful for an MVP, an integration or a specific improvement.
Discuss a project ↗Regular development and support for a product that keeps evolving. We agree priorities and review progress together.
Discuss collaboration ↗Your goals, context and constraints.
Clear priorities and a practical plan.
Develop, review and keep you informed.
Check the result and agree next steps.
One workflow, one slice, in production, then the next one. The first slice is scoped by what has to work, not by the size of the final product.
Laravel for the product, Node.js beside it when a separate runtime earns its place, MySQL for the data, Redis for the cache and the queue. The stack follows the workload, not the other way round.
Not by default. I start with the current system, its constraints and measured failures. A rewrite is an option only when the evidence supports it.
I estimate after reviewing the scope, access and risks. Project deliverables or retainer capacity, fees and exclusions are agreed before work starts.
Yes. We agree ownership, pull-request review, acceptance criteria and the release process. Credentials are shared through an approved secure channel, not a public form.
You do. Repositories, infrastructure and accounts stay under your control, and the access model is agreed before the work starts.
Yes, as a separate workflow beside what works today: one event in, one structured result out, with retries and a human-review path. Production behaviour changes only after the output meets the acceptance criteria we agreed.
Only the fields the step needs go to the model, with retention and access rules agreed before the first call, and every result stays traceable to the input that produced it.
Repository access, a list of the features customers depend on and a description of what already broke. Read-only access is enough for the first stage; write access is needed only if we go on to fix what the report lists.
Yes. I read their code and their proposal against what the product needs, and tell you what they are genuinely good at, what is missing, and what the estimate is hiding. It is a short engagement, and it often ends with a different plan than the one you had.
The path stops at that step, the failure stays attached to the record that caused it, and the step is either retried under the rules we agree or handed to a person. A failed request does not disappear and a retry does not create a duplicate.
One slice at a time, each with its own scope and its own number. You see the cost of the next slice before you agree to it, not at the end of the project.
Somebody has to, and it is cheaper to say so now than in the second incident. We agree the source of truth before the first request, and the other side becomes a copy that may be stale but never the answer.
The request stops where the failure is, stays attached to what caused it, and either retries under rules we agreed or waits for a person. It does not vanish, and it does not come back as a second charge.
A new idea, an existing project or a question. Let’s talk.
